Slashdot Mirror


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

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."

134 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 Marillion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're probably appealing to a sense of patriotic responsibility to keep it hidden. The old "Loose Lips Sink Ships" mantra. I call BS.

      --
      This is a boring sig
    2. Re:Warned about what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I imagine it was more the TSA spreading disinformation, telling the media outlets that there was nothing to worry about.

    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Re:Warned about what? by Kenja · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sorry, but a private citizen with no legal enforcement power (which TSA is and lacks) can not declare you an enemy of the state and have you sent to Guantanamo.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    6. Re:Warned about what? by Kenja · · Score: 2, Funny

      But the TSA is no more a "three letter agency" then TWA is.

      --

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

      They can send you to jail for not cooperating (or even citing the constitution at them), prevent you from traveling freely and deny you the right to exit the country. They can put you on watch lists that make the "more traditional" TLA's pay attention to you. And their influence is spreading.

      So, yes, they are.

      --
      Check your premises.
    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. Re:Warned about what? by ddtracy · · Score: 2

      Retroactive retracting of "freedom" of press...

    11. Re:Warned about what? by msauve · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The more citizens who fight the system, the harder it is for them to do any of that. What happens if/when there are 10,000,000 names on the Do Not Fly list?

      Whatever happened to the principles the US was founded on? "Live Free or Die," "Don't Tread On Me," "Liberty or Death?" We've become a country of Bread and Circuses consuming, Entitlement gratified proles.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    12. 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?"
    13. Re:Warned about what? by artor3 · · Score: 5, Funny

      But I thought that if we see something, we're supposed to say something?

    14. Re:Warned about what? by jonamous++ · · Score: 5, Funny

      Except the KGB actually had some badasses in it. Have you seen TSA agents? I could make a run for it and still get on the plane, stow my carry-on and calmly wait for takeoff before they managed to make it to the gate.

    15. Re:Warned about what? by pkinetics · · Score: 3, Insightful

      10k names is a small number to search against. Takes seconds on a properly implemented and maintained db and app.

      My point is that the TSA doesn't give a rats arse how many people on the list there are. They would be just as happy if there were 100k, even if it meant there 95% false positives. It would just mean more justification for their existence.

      Never assume a bureaucratic organization will always exist for the sake of the people. It eventually evolves to the point where its existence is its existence.

      Plants need electrolytes because plants need electrolytes.

    16. Re:Warned about what? by msauve · · Score: 4, Informative

      "10k names is a small number to search against."

      Innumeracy runs rampant. You're off by a factor of 1000. 10,000,000 (that's 10 million, since you apparently can't parse digits) is a very significant fraction of the (frequently) flying public.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    17. Re:Warned about what? by sjames · · Score: 2

      So you're saying they have no authority they could possibly abuse? No chance you could get "randomly selected" for life or find your way to the no-fly list?

    18. Re:Warned about what? by JWSmythe · · Score: 5, Informative

      The flaw was exposed in February 2011 by an undercover TSA agent. He tested a known, unpatched, exploit.

      Here's more links to stories.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    19. Re:Warned about what? by ArieKremen · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...but there is nothing to see, ergo you're not supposed to say anything! Being consequent helps.

      --
      -- Cave quid dicis, quando, et cui
    20. Re:Warned about what? by Cosgrach · · Score: 2

      I can't. So I broke it up a bit:

      Farcebook won't allow the link to the original wordpress blog article.

      Try this:

      Type: http:

      Then copy the following text and paste it behind. //tsaoutofourpants(dot)wordpress(dot)com/2012/03/06/1b-of-nude-body-scanners-made-worthless-by-blog-how-anyone-can-get-anything-past-the-tsas-nude-body-scanners/

      --
      Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
    21. Re:Warned about what? by hey! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While I applaud your sentiment, I wouldn't necessarily endorse the use of all the incidents you cite to support those sentiments. For example:

      Just before he was to be scanned, Tobey protested his treatment by removing his pants and shirt (thankfully, leaving his boxers on), and revealing a writing on his chest, “Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.”

      For thus displaying a sentence appearing in our country’s Constitution, Tobey was deemed to be a “security risk.

      Personally I suspect it wasn't his attempt to "educate the TSA" (as the columnist put it) that branded him as a security risk. I think it more likely that his behavior was simply regarded as bizarre. Personally, I'd suspect PCP use if I saw somebody do this, although I wouldn't dispute that in light of further developments it was probably a sober, if unconventional act of political protest.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    22. Re:Warned about what? by msauve · · Score: 2

      "They get a bigger server farm?"

      Whoosh.

      It's not looking them up, it's having the majority of the traveling population blocked/delayed at the checkpoint, the resulting logistics, and the political fallout.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    23. Re:Warned about what? by Stormthirst · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Never the less, a properly maintained DB and app will still render the numbers largely irrelevant.

    24. Re:Warned about what? by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's inhumane. Nobody deserves light opera.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    25. Re:Warned about what? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      Personally, I'd suspect PCP use if I saw somebody do this...

      IOW, "What he's doing doesn't make sense to me; therefore, he must be on drugs." Clever.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    26. Re:Warned about what? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And here I was, thinking it was a two party dictatorship...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    27. Re:Warned about what? by russotto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What where the consequences they where threatened with?

      Reporters might find it hard to advance in their profession when they're on the no-fly list.

    28. Re:Warned about what? by msauve · · Score: 2, Funny

      /. is a US site, and 10.000.000 is a version of software, not a number.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    29. Re:Warned about what? by jamstar7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Um, TSA is a branch of Homeland Security. They don't need arrest powers, they just pass the request up the line and whoever is disappeared.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    30. Re:Warned about what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wrong? I think it's irrelevant.

      The problem for them wouldn't be keep 10,000,000 people off of planes, it would be telling those 10,000,000 people that they can't fly. And even if you do manage that, TSA would have serious issues getting revenue if the air carriers can't put people in the seats.

    31. Re:Warned about what? by Fjandr · · Score: 3, Funny

      Eh, lots of countries prove you can call yourself a republic and be a dictatorship at the same time.

      Anyway, since we have a two-party dictatorship we're obviously 50% more free than a single-party dictatorship like North Korea.

    32. Re:Warned about what? by shiftless · · Score: 3, Insightful

      By the time you get to the point where they'd put 10M names on the No Fly list, there will be MUCH more worse punishments ready and lined up for a good portion of those 10M. The No Fly list will then only be for low level people, like nobodies who criticize the government, not Somebodies who need to be Locked Away out of Sight and Punished.

    33. Re:Warned about what? by Johann+Lau · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course it's BS. Think about it. Before this stuff, you couldn't get that easily on board with a gun or box cutters. Now it's become *easier* than before. Streamlined access for terrorists and undercover government peeps, PITA for the rest. That's what taking a long hard look at this would reveal, it would make a whole lot of bluffs quite obvious. It threatens a house of cards. So.... who are these clowns to give advice to anyone? They should shut the fuck up, say "thank you" and "sorry", work until they paid the money they squandered back, and then go to jail for life. That would be the *beginning* of something remotely sensible.

    34. Re:Warned about what? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 3, Informative

      How is an adult's decision to consume ANY substance a reasonable basis for detention?

      Just because prohibition is law does NOT make it reasonable.

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

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

    36. Re:Warned about what? by LBt1st · · Score: 2

      Those principles were bought by corporations while the country watched American Idle.

    37. Re:Warned about what? by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      Now-a-days it's used for stuff it really shouldn't be.

      That's because loose lips sink dictatorships as well as the sea-going kind.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    38. Re:Warned about what? by advocate_one · · Score: 2

      actually it's really only one party... they're just two faces of the same coin...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    39. Re:Warned about what? by houghi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What happens if/when there are 10,000,000 names on the Do Not Fly list?

      Then they will just need more people to handle those that try to fly. Or they will ask for other measures that are just as ridiculous as they are now, like random searches anywhere, because you know, bridges and tunnels can be targets too.
        This is not about the do-not-fly list. This is about them wanting complete control over everything and everybody and they will not stop before they have it. The question is when you, The American Public, will stop them.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    40. Re:Warned about what? by HyperQuantum · · Score: 2

      That's the difference between "in theory" and "in practice".

      --
      I am not really here right now.
    41. Re:Warned about what? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

      That would probably be the quickest way to get the system corrected and the TSA dismantled. Unfortunately the our already poor reporting would get much worse but this time the feds would be screwing with some people who have power. Could you imagine all the reporters doing investigative reports on the TSA and their piss poor job.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    42. Re:Warned about what? by blueg3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's right. American citizens are being disappeared by the government on a daily basis. Apparently either their friends and family never notice or Big Media is in on it and so you never see a story about it...

    43. Re:Warned about what? by Alranor · · Score: 2

      In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice.

      In practice, however, there usually is

    44. Re:Warned about what? by cpu6502 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      QUOTE: "(Abbott) told me in a very stern voice with quite a bit of attitude that they were not going through that X-ray," security officer Sabrina Birge told police. Birge said she told Abbott that the machine was "not an X-ray"

      Except 3/4 of the machines are indeed X-ray machines. And if they experience a mechnical failure, can hit passengers with lethal doses. I'm not sure I trust the machines either.

      QUOTE:"After Abbott refused to cool her heels - she allegedly attempted to try to shoot video of the agents with her cell phone - cops cuffed her and hauled her off to jail."

      The U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that citizens have a first amendment "right of freedom of the press" to record the actions of government officials in public venues. Including with a camera, an audio recorder, or the old-fashioned way of writing it down on a tablet. This woman should never have been arrested.

      Assholes.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    45. Re:Warned about what? by GNULinuxGuy · · Score: 2

      Given that "an astounding 2,300 Americans are reported missing every day, including both adults and children" (truTV), it seems to me any number of agencies could easily pull this off at will. Not saying they do, but, how would we know?

      --
      Earn Cash and Prizes, and get free stuff!
  2. Probably not suppressed for Terrorists. by macaran · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would kind of suspect they know terrorists are already aware of the vulnerability, more likely they just don't want random Joe smoe smuggling a miniaturized gun onboard because he can, and then having an armed civilian on the flight if something goes wrong in the air.

    1. 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...

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

      What terrorists?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:Probably not suppressed for Terrorists. by martin-boundary · · Score: 2

      You mean they *don't* want passengers to overpower and kill any terrorists if they show up on a flight? Sorry sir, you killed this terrorist without a license, that will be a $5000 fine, and a televised apology on FOX to the viewers who were hoping to see the White House ablaze.

    4. 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.
    5. Re:Probably not suppressed for Terrorists. by Hatta · · Score: 2

      That's amazing. The FBI must be batting 1000, since there hasn't been a successful terrorist attack in 10 years. Imagine that. Absolute perfection from law enforcement. It's almost enough to make you swoon from patriotism.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:Probably not suppressed for Terrorists. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Well, as the old saying goes, the terrorism of the rich is war, the war of the poor is terrorism. It's not a justification, but an explanation. And, essentially, exactly the same reaction, just with different access to means.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. 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 macaran · · Score: 2

      Someone who has actually used one of these could probably confirm or deny this, but I believe they are designed to just have people walk through them in an orderly fashion to not hold up lines. If everyone stopped and did a little ballerina turn in them it would slow things down immensely. Also that would detect things sewn into clothing, but probably not thin things like wires taped to the body.

    3. Re:Easy fix? by casualsax3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, I think the entire program should be scrapped both because of the health hazards, and because it's a gross invasion of privacy. If they're hell bent on keeping it around though, the least they could do is make it work properly. I'd rather be exposed to a double dose of radiation if it actually made me safer, as opposed to the status quo which is one shot for theater's sake.

    4. Re:Easy fix? by HolyCrapSCOsux · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's what metal detectors do. I fly a lot. these go thusly:
      wait, get in, put your feet on the prints (rotated 90 degrees from normal walking direction), hold up your arms
      wait for the scanner to swipe through it's arc.
      get out
      wait on another set of footprints

      total time 20-45 seconds per scan.

      --
      0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
    5. 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?

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

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

    7. Re:Easy fix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Honestly, I feel bad for the people who work around the machines. There's no shielding. When TSA agents start getting cancer, part of me will feel bad for them. But part of me will be laughing hysterically.

    8. Re:Easy fix? by artor3 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Someone who has actually used one of these could probably confirm or deny this...

      As someone who has actually used one of these (many times), my answer is a solid "deny". You don't just walk through these scanners the way you do with the metal detectors. You walk in, turn to the side, spread your legs, put your hands in the air, and hold that position for about five seconds. They slow down the lines immensely. If you then had to turn another 90 degrees and hold for another five seconds, it would make things even worse.

      Considering that the scanners don't even detect the sort of threat they were rolled out in response to (the underwear bomber), they should just be scrapped entirely, and the government should do everything in its power to find a loophole in the contract to get some of our money back.

    9. Re:Easy fix? by NixieBunny · · Score: 4, Informative

      Better yet, they could change the background to be white instead of black by changing the reflective properties of the material behind the person, thereby allowing metal strapped to one's sides to stand out.

      But I work on millimeter waves in my day job, so don't believe a word I say.

      --
      The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
    10. Re:Easy fix? by Mitreya · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The radiation dosage received from the scanner is still less than what you get from the flight itself. If you are that worried about radiation, you probably don't want to be on the plane in the first place.

      Ok, two things:
      1. I need to get from A to B when I get on the plane. There is a perceived benefit and there is some incurred cost. Seeing how not a single one of these machines is know to have stopped a single terrorist, there is no perceived benefit to match going through the machine
      2. You say that radiation dose is miniscule. TSA says that radiation dose is miniscule. Others say that due to improper calibration (how many of TSA employees are qualified to calibrate a medlical-like device?) or due to other factors the radiation received may be 10X or 100X higher than the "optimal". TSA had refused to do a health study, so even assuming I trust everyone equally, that's a 50-50 risk that TSA assertion is wrong.

    11. Re:Easy fix? by slippyblade · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And you say this on what grounds? The dosages that the machines give out is "Classified for National Security Purposes". They won't tell you how much you are getting dosed. It's illegal for them to tell you. Hell, if you listen to the TSA tell it, it's "the same as getting an ultrasound"

    12. Re:Easy fix? by unrtst · · Score: 2

      Also that would detect things sewn into clothing, but probably not thin things like wires taped to the body.

      Or 2x foot long razor blades: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3yaqq9Jjb4
      (that's a link to Adam Savage of Mythbusters fame giving a talk at w00tstock 2.0)

      FWIW, metal detectors *could* detect these, but they often have those things turned down so low stuff like this would pass right through anyway (I've gone through a bunch of times with my chunky metal belt buckle still on... left it on by mistake, and always surprised when it doesn't go beep).

      My favorite solution to this whole mess is to simply arm every passenger when they enter the plane.

    13. Re:Easy fix? by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I also do a fair amount of work travel, and detest the scanners, but I still find the baggage screening process to dominate the time required in line. Remember, this occurs in parallel with the baggage getting screened. Chances are that, while you're getting screened, the guy behind you is fumbling with his belt and the genius scanning the bags is reversing the conveyor belt to find the shampoo that someone had left in their bag.

      I've never found a backup of people trying to get through the people scanner, it's always waiting to shove your crap on the conveyor. I don't think they should be doing mm-wave pr0n at all, but I don't think a quick second scan slows the overall process down at all.

    14. Re:Easy fix? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      But how do we get every TSA worker to swallow it?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:Easy fix? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Hold it right there, you know what dose you get from those machines? How did you get classified information?

      Or are you just repeating the TSA PR leaflet? If so, you should move to Japan. I heard the real estates near Fukushima are really cheap to get today, and the local nuclear plant is no threat anymore. At least according to its owner.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    16. Re:Easy fix? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      You are aware that the reason they were bought is most likely not to make someone safer but to make someone richer, yes? So why should anyone WANT to find a loophole to get money back?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    17. Re:Easy fix? by Drgnkght · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Anyone know if anyone has ever tried to go through one with a film badge dosimeter or something similar? That might prove very interesting.

    18. Re:Easy fix? by chilbert · · Score: 3, Interesting

      2. You say that radiation dose is miniscule. TSA says that radiation dose is miniscule. Others say that due to improper calibration (how many of TSA employees are qualified to calibrate a medlical-like device?) or due to other factors the radiation received may be 10X or 100X higher than the "optimal". TSA had refused to do a health study, so even assuming I trust everyone equally, that's a 50-50 risk that TSA assertion is wrong.

      In addition there's a concern that the radiation dose bounces back out from somewhere shallow below the surface of the skin, with unknown implications for damage to the skin.

    19. Re:Easy fix? by imunfair · · Score: 2

      That's purely an American problem.

      In Italy last year I found the line moved at about the same speed as the scanner, and occasionally they would wave people with laptops over to a table to do a 30 second explosives swab. They also had a conveyor belt above the machine to return the empty bins, rather than having a TSA drone hand stack the refills.

      At the Adelaide airport in Sydney I had to hustle to get my laptop out of the bag and the change out of my pockets fast enough to prevent holding up the line. They also don't bother with silly things like taking off your shoes - and Australia doesn't seem to have a liquid limit either - I accidentally sent a nearly full 1.5 litre bottle of water through in my backpack and they didn't even stop to inspect it.

      Other countries have much saner and faster screening procedures, akin to what I remember it being like when I flew as a kid/teen in the early 90's.

    20. Re:Easy fix? by Kentari · · Score: 2

      No, that's what the TSA agent does when you opt for the 'pat down'.

    21. Re:Easy fix? by Stargoat · · Score: 2

      Well yeah. A few rounds here or there won't hurt anything. But a picture or two can stop an entire war.

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
  4. TSA has this covered. by Xandrax · · Score: 5, Funny

    Much like the underwear bomber, TSA has this all planned out.

    1. Allow terrorist onboard with a weapon hidden at his side.
    2. Civilians on plane stop terrorist when he attempts to take over plane.
    3. TSA announces that the system worked.

    These "reporters" are clearly interfering with step #1.

  5. 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.

  6. the TSA is unconstitutional as heck! by FudRucker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    not only are they searching people without probable cause, the airlines should be left to police themselves so the tax payers wont have to pay for it, let the airline customers pay for it...

    I will stay away from the airports if the TSA stays out of my pants, and I refuse to step in to your xray cancer machines.

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:the TSA is unconstitutional as heck! by HolyCrapSCOsux · · Score: 2

      I think you meant "until" instead of "if"

      --
      0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
    2. Re:the TSA is unconstitutional as heck! by BoberFett · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't think the airlines have a vested interest in keeping their planes from falling out of the sky?

    3. 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
    4. Re:the TSA is unconstitutional as heck! by slippyblade · · Score: 2

      And it's been shown time after time that the "policing" by the TSA would not have had the slightest affect on ANY of the terrorist plots to date. Including 9/11.

    5. Re:the TSA is unconstitutional as heck! by forand · · Score: 2

      The problem with this opinion is that in the long run the government IS on the line for ANY security failure. Privatizing may have many good side effects (e.g. less intrusive procedures and lower costs) but at the end of the day I think the airlines want the government to be fully on the hook for security failures. Before 9/11 (and thus during it) security was privatized. It failed. Airlines were able to push the blame for THEIR security failure onto the public sector. I do not see any reason why they would want to take on this risk. RIght now it is cheaper in both the long and short for the airlines (i.e. we all, as tax payers, pay not just those who fly) and you won't get a privatized solution until the airlines see a benefit from it.

  7. They're hardly perfect by Kjella · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I remember back in 2002 I had this huge inner door house key, like really big old fashioned solid iron thing. It ended up being in my pocket as I walked through the metal detector, so I just clenched it in my palm thinking I'll have to show it anyway. Passed right through, not a beep. It was big enough it'd easily be the blade of a pretty good knife. And it beeped for some other passengers so it wasn't defective either. Of course this was after 9/11 so everybody was on their toes, I showed it to a friend and he was like "Seriously? You got to be kidding me..." but it happened.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:They're hardly perfect by PRMan · · Score: 2, Informative

      If the key were brass or bronze, there would be very little iron to pick up for a hunk of metal for that size and weight.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:They're hardly perfect by asher09 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Since I work in a lab, I use razor blades for many different reasons. I used to keep one in my wallet for convenience. Then I forgot about it when I went through security at an airport, and I got through it no problem with my razor blade on the flight! This was right after 9/11 like early 2002, I think.

      --
      Some were yelling one thing, some another. Most of them had no idea what was going on or why they were there. Acts19:32
    3. Re:They're hardly perfect by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Luckily, neither brass nor bronze are of any value for either holding an edge or inflicting blunt trauma...

      And no need to even mention ceramics or the fancier plastics, that shit is totally harmless.

    4. Re:They're hardly perfect by marcosdumay · · Score: 4, Informative

      They aren't iron detectors, they are metal detectors.

      In fact, they'd detect bronze better than steel.

    5. Re:They're hardly perfect by AngryDeuce · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Man, I once got through with a few unused razor blades in my carry-on I had left there by mistake. I don't know if it was the cardboard covering or what, but they weren't even inside my bag, it was one of those backpacks with the mesh pockets and you could see them right through it. Got right through.

      Meanwhile, my sister-in-law, who is permanently disabled due to being wounded in Iraq, has 10 pounds of metal in her leg, and has to walk with a cane, she gets a ration of shit every single fucking time we go through the airport. They try to take not only her cane, but her damn knee brace every single time, saying it could be used as a weapon, but the best part is, when she complains and makes a scene, they always wave her through, which really makes me want to ask (if I wanted to end up in a windowless room when my plane takes off, that is): If it truly could be used as a weapon and is dangerous, why the fuck is complaining enough to get waved through? And if it's not, why the fuck do they stop her and try to take it from her every time she goes through security?

      The TSA is a fucking joke...

    6. Re:They're hardly perfect by slippyblade · · Score: 4, Funny

      I typed out an entire response about the Bronze Age before I realized you were being sarcastic... My sensor is busted today I guess.

    7. Re:They're hardly perfect by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anyone here who doesn't know yet that the whole TSA is mostly a job creation project? No? Good.

      Let's be blunt and honest here: These people have close to zero training in security, they have near zero training in the technology they use and they are most certainly not chosen for their people skills, their intelligence or their ability to work efficiently.

      If they had ANY of those qualities, they could have a real job!

      It's a job creation program for people who are generally unemployable.

      Gee, I hope I didn't just spill a national secret...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:They're hardly perfect by veganboyjosh · · Score: 2

      In 2010, I flew from Denver to Minneapolis. It was a visit during which, I would be riding a loaned bicycle, so I brought a multitool should I need to do some roadside repairs on the loaner. On my flight there, I had plenty of time to go through security and if the multitool (which had a 2" knife blade) was not allowed, I could go check the bag it was in. I went through security without a hiccup.

      Landed in Minneapolis, and went to check with security, since I wouldn't have such a time window on my return flight, and wanted to see if I would need to check the bag with the multitool in it or if it would be allowed. I went up to the security station and politely asked the TSA agent if this would be allowed. I had it in my hand as I approached. The knife blade wasn't visible but it was obvious that it was a bicycle multitool. I asked if it would be allowed. A fellow agent came over in the middle of my explanation, and started to ask some questions about the tool.

      The first agent sort of waved his hand and said "It's ok, it's a bicycle multitool. It has wrenches and screwdrivers, right? You should be fine."

      To which i responded "Well, it does have a 2" knife blade on it, in case you need to cut something."

      At this point, the agent stiffened up, looked around and in a very serious voice said "Sir? You have a knife on your person? How did you get into this secure area? You need to leave this secure area immediately or..." and then went into this official sounding tirade.

      I tried restating my question, but you'd think I had threatened to stab the guy. I checked the bag on the return flight, but it turns out they didn't like the burly bicycle lock in my check bag, either. As if a big chain would be a threat in the belly of the plane...

    9. Re:They're hardly perfect by Fjandr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That only works when the conditions exist where people are drawn to the extremist teachers out of desperation and/or complete lack of hope for the future. It's the people who are already marginalized who are drawn to that sort of rhetoric. If you work on the root of the problem (the marginalization), the pool of potential terrorists gets drastically smaller.

  8. BS? Barbara Streisand? by HiggsBison · · Score: 5, Funny

    I call BS.

    I was wondering who would bring up the Barbara Streisand Effect first.

    So now, Barbara Streisand is a Terrorist!

    --
    My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
    1. Re:BS? Barbara Streisand? by martin-boundary · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh yes, didn't you know? Between gigs, she flies her pink six-wheeled Ford to some island in the Pacific, where she sips Pernod by the pool, and launches rocket planes with tiny puppet vigilantes in them who terrorise world governments and bring Freedom to their asses.

    2. Re:BS? Barbara Streisand? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      Gee, you notice that now? I heard her sing, that was proof enough!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. Re:hello tsa: by Voogru · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't worry, they will have their checkpoints soon enough so they can grope her.

  10. ask Thomas Drake, Stephen Kim, by decora · · Score: 2

    Shamai Leibowitz, Jeffrey Sterling, Siobhan Gorman, Diane Roark, and Jesselyn Radack.

  11. have you read The Interrogators by decora · · Score: 4, Interesting

    because thats pretty much what happened in Afghanistan in 2002, and how we got people like Khalid Sheik Mohammad put in the same facility with random teenagers and goat herders.

  12. Where is the text? by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm interested to see the text of this email. It's hard to judge just how egregious this behavior is without seeing the actual text.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  13. Not Surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I recently went through a major southeast U.S. airport. When I stated my desire to opt out of the millimeter scanner, the TSA agent tried to convince me otherwise. When I stated my desire to opt out again, she deadpan "joked" it is $20 extra screening fee for a pat down (but relented after a further exchange). I would not be surprised if supervisors suggested their agents try that to discourage as many people from opting out as possible to make the numbers look better in their favor.

    1. Re:Not Surprised by waferbuster · · Score: 2

      Last month I flew thru LAX. Since I had a 4 hour layover before my flight to Hong Kong, I decided to decline the scan. The TSA herder made me repeat it a couple of times, and then loudly called out for a "male pat-down." There was a young lady behind me in line. She watched me waiting for my escort to the patdown area, and exclaimed that she didn't know opt-out was an option and that she wanted to opt-out too!

      Oh, and the TSA guy who showed up to do my pat-down was very professional about it. At first he took his cue from the herder, and was sounding as if I were doing something suspicious. After chatting for a minute, he relaxed and just did the frisk and sent me on my way.

      --
      I'm an individual! Just like everyone else!
  14. FoxNews is covering the story by McGruber · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. 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.

  15. TSA needs to be disbanded with prejudice by fnj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The TSA needs to be disbanded at once with prejudice. It is nothing but kabuki theater masking fascism. It has no place in the America of our founders.

    1. Re:TSA needs to be disbanded with prejudice by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      It is nothing but kabuki theater

      Closer to bukkake, by most accounts.

      Oh, come on.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  16. It is not about the truth it is about perception by cygtoad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The TSA doesn't care if the backscatter scanner doesn't detect contraband. They don't even care if the terrorists know it. They don't want the general public at large knowing it because this kind of thing really messes up the security theater magic act. They also don't want to answer the accusations of exposing passengers to radiation for a less than perfect technology.

    I saw a sign in the airport las weekend. "The backscatter scanner exposes you the same amount of radiation as you receive in two minutes in the airplane". Yeah but think of it this way; standing on a beach on a sunny day would you accept someone telling you that you were going to get a sun blast equal to two minutes in the sun in two seconds? Radiation doesn't always hurt bit it is always harmful to your DNA. There is a reason heath care providers put a limit on the number of X-rays you get in year.

  17. I have an easier fix by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Use the fucking metal detectors that are already there! They work great. They'll pick up any gun, even a small one. No, there is no gun that has no metal in it (nor bullets). What's more metal detectors are 100% within the range of TSA intelligence to use: Green = person ok, go through. Red + beep = person not ok. Even the untrained morons in the TSA can deal with that. The scanners though, they require knowledge an interpretation. You are presented with an image and you have to interpret it.

    That is why so many people get sent for patdowns. Not because they found something but because they can't tell what they fuck they are looking at. They can't interpret the results.

    The answer is in what they already have. Metal detectors work great. There's a reason why people like, say, the Secret Service uses metal detectors, and not these scanners.

    1. Re:I have an easier fix by waferbuster · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sigh. Have you ever held a glock? What material do you suppose the slide (you know, that thingy on the top that goes back and forth each time it goes bang) is made of? That's right... Steel. Which is a metal. How about the barrel? Oh yeah, that's steel too. Recoil spring? I'll give you a hint... steel. Should I go on?

      But you're half right... the frame is made of... polymer. A fancy name for plastic. So if you separated the slide from the frame, and took all the little movable metal parts out of the frame, then the frame probably wouldn't set off the metal detector (the little metal inserts molded into the frame are probably too small to set off the walk-thru metal detector).
      Summary: Glocks (and all other mainstream guns) have major parts made of metal. More metal than a belt buckle. If a beltbuckle sets of the metal detector, so will a gun. Even a glock.

      http://xkcd.com/386/

      --
      I'm an individual! Just like everyone else!
    2. Re:I have an easier fix by spasm · · Score: 4, Informative

      "The Glock 23 has no metal parts"

      Umm.. "The Glock's frame, magazine body and several other components are made from a high-strength nylon-based polymer invented by Gaston Glock and called Polymer 2.[34] .. The injection molded frame contains 4 hardened steel guide rails for the slide: two at the rear of the frame, and the remaining pair above and in front of the trigger guard. .. The frame houses the locking block, which is an investment casting that engages a 45 camming surface on the barrel's lower camming lug. It is retained in the frame by a steel axis pin that holds the trigger and slide catch. .. A spring-loaded sheet metal pressing serves as the slide catch, which is secured from unintentional manipulation by a raised guard molded into the frame."

    3. Re:I have an easier fix by heypete · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Glock 23 has no metal parts in it (as the most famous - You can actually get at least half-a-dozen polymer frames today, in a variety of poly chambers and actions). Poly casings hit the mainstream within the last few years (though they still cost a bit more); Hand-load with a properly sized ceramic bullet, and you have fully live firearm without a scrap of metal in it.

      Say what? The Glock 23 certainly is made of metal, as are all Glock pistols. The barrel, slide, and much of the internal mechanisms are steel and comprise about 80% of the gun's mass. It is certainly detectable by airport metal detectors.

      The plastic parts show up clearly on airport x-ray baggage scanners. The plastic parts and magazines have a fair bit of metal in them as well for strengthening (and the metal rails on the frame for the slide to move on) and would set off metal detectors.

      There's nothing special about the Glock 23: it's simply the mid-sized model chambered in .40 S&W. I have owned it's 9mm counterpart, the Glock 19, and the subcompact 9mm Glock 26 and can confirm that both the 9mm and .40 S&W models have considerable amounts of metal.

  18. 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 Lehk228 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      didn't you listen to Bush.

      they hate us for our freedoms

      if we eliminate all our freedoms they won't hate us anymore

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    2. Re:Osama must be laughing in his grave. by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Could he have ever imagined the repercussions of his attack?

      He did. Read "bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America". This was written before 9/11, and includes many of bin Laden's own comments. He recognized that America was too strong to take down, and had to be weakened internally first. His plan was to destroy America's moral authority in the world. He wanted a more oppressive and heavy-handed America, to help build hate and opposition in the rest of the world. That was the objective of his terrorism.

      He succeeded.

      It's hard to remember now, but just before 9/11, the US didn't have any serious enemies. The big players, Russia, China, Japan, and the European Union, were on good terms with the US. The Middle East was intimidated, but reassured by the fact that, once the US was finished liberating Kuwait, all the US troops packed up and went home.

      If the US had simply focused on cleaning up the mess and finding bin Laden, we would have been far better off.

    3. Re:Osama must be laughing in his grave. by Brad1138 · · Score: 2

      I wonder if it is even possible for the U.S. to return to a "pre 9/11" state/status. I loved my country back then, now, not so much. It saddens me greatly.

      --
      If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
    4. Re:Osama must be laughing in his grave. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      I'd say Mission Accomplished.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. 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.
  19. Known issue by TankSpanker04 · · Score: 2

    TSA is just pissed someone exposed a known design flaw in the hardware they use and now they're trying to minimize public knowledge of it.

  20. Re:False Modesty by Lehk228 · · Score: 2

    1) not wanting to bow to authoritarian pigs

    2) not wanting to die of skin cancer

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  21. Re:TSA perversion by thechemic · · Score: 2

    Because the TSA workers would steal them.

    --
    Let's make like a bird... and get the flock outta here.
  22. How to stop the TSA: Just say no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Want to stop the TSA from ever groping another child (or, for that matter, you)? Easy. Let me tell you a little secret: The TSA agents do not have police powers . That's right, they cannot arrest you. They may threaten to do so, but if they actually want you arrested they have to call a real cop. A cop from the jurisdiction in which the airport is located.

    So here's how the revolution will work: If even a half dozen people a day refuse to be searched or groped at a major airport, the TSA will have to call the local police, and ask them to arrest the "violators". The first interesting question is, will the real cops co-operate and arrest you? The second question is, if they arrest you, what will be the charges? If the local police do arrest you and think of some charges that might stick, will the local D.A., who is, after all, a politician, want to prosecute you? I doubt it; a string of convictions against hapless travelers who bravely stood up the the Federal tyranny will get him very few votes in the next election.

    People don't seem to realize just how shaky this whole airport TSA tyranny is: it ultimately rests on the threat that local authorities will be willing to deal with people who give the TSA the finger, yet it is not in the interest of those local authorities to help the TSA. Quite the opposite. You might want to pick the target jurisdiction carefully. I would avoid Cook county (Chicago), for example. Because the first few people to do this will probably get arrested and spend a night in jail, you will want to research local attitudes and jail conditions. After the first dozen or so, the local D.A. will almost certainly decide to put a halt to the spectacle, and declare that he will no longer do the TSA's dirty work for them.

    Let me be very clear on this: I am not suggesting that anyone do anything illegal. It's not illegal to insist that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution be observed. Be polite to the cops, do not give them any reason to arrest you on their own, or to pile on charges (like resisting arrest). It would be good if someone nearby happened to have a video of the arrest.

    1. Re:How to stop the TSA: Just say no by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 2

      In every major airport I've been through, the airport police are right there at the screening area. Many airports actually have their own police jurisdiction.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

  23. Re:Easy fix? OPT OUT! by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 2

    I'm also worried about the amount of radiation my member is being exposed to!
    OK...but I am concerned that these machines are essentially operated by untrained people who have no concern at all for the safety of those passing through them. The machines themselves were produced for "national security" and as such were most likely granted all kinds of waivers to radiation safety regulations. I won't go through them and I don't trust TSA to be doing any kind of regular checks or maintenance on them, except when they fail to show an image.

  24. Damn those puppet vigilantes! by daninaustin · · Score: 2

    Damn them all to hell! :)

  25. Re:False Modesty by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh, that's easy to explain. There are a few factors that get the people's panties in a knot.

    First, it's the whole security theater. A system that is proven to be flawed to the point of being utterly and completely useless, but expensive. And we have to foot that bill. We have to pay for those scanners, the TSA goons, the whole theater and its cast and crew. And we don't even like the show one bit, it's tedious and they keep playing the same bit for a decade. Even Cats was boring after that long.

    Second, the threat of cancer. Or rather, the fact that we don't get to hear whether there is a threat. Why not? Why are we being subjected to a procedure that is flawed and not able to accomplish its intended goal, while at the same time being possibly dangerous to your health? See, people could and would accept it if there was a benefit. We know that we could die in a car crash, still we drive with cars. The good (being able to get from A to B fast) outweighs the bad (the chance of dying because some drunk idiot hits my car). This is not the case here. There is no good (intended goal not being met) while there might be a bad (threat of cancer).

    Third, the time loss. When I was young (yeah, get offa my lawn) it was enough to get to the airport about 30 minutes before your flight, at least if it was a domestic flight. Today you better get there a few hours early. And if you plan to go international, consider spending the better part of your day on the airport. This is by no means in any relation to the gain. Which is essentially zero.

    This is what the rage is about. Not that we get groped. Actually, the whole point is that we'd PREFER to get groped to being scanned. But only as much as we'd prefer being shot to being crucified.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  26. Re:Embarrassing items by bastian74 · · Score: 2

    You sound boring and inexperienced.

  27. Re:What I'm wondering is... by Fnord666 · · Score: 2

    Why can't you scan people twice at two different angles (a la mugshots)? Then any weapons strapped to the side of the person will be revealed.

    Because people are already concerned about the amount of exposure they are getting from one scan, let alone two.

    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
  28. Not exactly by shiftless · · Score: 2

    (especially given their general ineptitude, it'll probably be a naively-implemented MySQL database on an old P4

    Apparently you are too familiar with how government ineptitude works. Most likely it'll be a naively-implemented MySQL database on a brand new sparkling 128 core supercomputer, bought and paid for by the persecuted.

    1. Re:Not exactly by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It'll be MySQL running on Windows Server 2008 r2, on virtualized clusters with one VM per blade, tied in to an iSCSI SAN implemented by the highest bidder (after the deciding manager on the RFP eliminates all other bidders for lack of confidence in their ability to deliver the requirements). And yes, I've been lowest bidder on a government contract and got eliminated because the higher bidders argued it couldn't be done for as little as my bid (which it could have, but not when the massive players, EDS and the like, get in the mix). No, I'm not bitter as a businessman, but bitter as a taxpayer, knowing that, from what I've seen, most contracts go to one of the highest bidders (who goes over budget anyway and is still a preferred vendor, getting more after never having hit the budget, even with having the largest bid).

    2. Re:Not exactly by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

      Close but it would more likely be implemented with MS Access not an open source solution, the rest is probably spot on though.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  29. Re:can't you also make plastic shivs? by Fjandr · · Score: 3, Informative

    The hell with improvising. High quality polymer weapons are cheap.

    http://www.coldsteel.com/nightshadeseries.html

  30. The Juggernaut cannot be stopped by bradley13 · · Score: 4

    I have to agree with the posters above. In the 1990s, after winning the "cold war", the US was triumphant and popular. Apparently this went to the heads of the politicians. While there was brief talk about scaling back military expenditures (since they were not necessary anymore), instead the US scaled up, and started looking for places to use that military. 9/11 was a huge boon to those who wanted to go this way, and they have taken full advantage of it. The US now spends nearly as much on its military as the entire rest of the world combined. Internationally, the US behaves like a schoolyard bully - a bully utterly convinced of his own righteousness.

    What I find saddest about this whole situation: most people I know in the USA don't have the faintest inkling of this. "Look at all the good we do." "The Iraqis should be thankful we got rid of Hussein for them." Etc.. It's really unbelievable.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  31. Is it really minuscule ? There is doubt. by aepervius · · Score: 2

    See , apparentely when the machine were given for approval, the dose was calculated by having the dose calculated for the whole body. As if the whole body was receiving it. So the dose density per tissue would be low. But the reality is that those scanner actually deposit most of their radiation dose not in the whole body but the skin surface. So the real dose would be 2 order of magnitude than what is touted by the machine maker , for the tissue concerned. And thus increasing the risk of cancer , specifically skin cancer, much more. I have seen estimate than about 3 to 6 person would die of skin cancer due to those detector every year. Naturally this is very small, compared to the hundred of million of passenger which probably go thru them, but it is an enormous amount compared to the number of people dying of terroristic attack today in the USA (about zero).

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  32. LOL - The more citizens who fight... get real by Shivetya · · Score: 3, Insightful

    With so many citizens on the dole do you really expect them to care?

    It is happening to OTHER people. Not them. That is how they think. The government if giving them money to eat, giving them money when they don't earn any, giving them money if they don't make enough, paying for their health care, their transit passes, and their cell phones.

    Do you think they don't mind giving up stuff, the trade off seems to be only inconveniencing people who are flying, you know those who have their own money. You are out of touch with how many people think now

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.