Slashdot Mirror


TSA Defends Pat Down of 4-Year-Old Girl

cosm writes "With public outcry against the TSA continuing to spread, the TSA is defending a recent episode in which a four-year-old was patted down while kicking and screaming at Wichita Airport in Kansas. From the AP article: 'The grandmother of a 4-year-old girl who became hysterical during a security screening at a Kansas airport said Wednesday that the child was forced to undergo a pat-down after hugging her, with security agents yelling and calling the crying girl an uncooperative suspect.'"

1,174 comments

  1. Of course. by NeverSuchBefore · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Otherwise, despite increased cockpit security and civilian awareness, we'd all die from terrorist attacks! That's why you must surrender your privacy in exchange for the all-important security theater like a good citizen would do. Otherwise, you're just a terrorist!

    1. Re:Of course. by davidbrit2 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Personally, I'm at the point where I'd rather take my chances with the alleged terrorists than the TSA.

    2. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the terrorists has won, but aside from the panic attacks i get in airplanes now (not from fear of another 9/11 but from the buffalo incident where the plane literally just fell from the sky without hope), the TSA is why I do not fly anymore, and never again plan to unless absolutely necessary.

      sad really, because i'd like to visit some countries in europe again.

    3. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not making the likelihood of attack decrease, it's just moving the crowd (target) out of the plane and into the queue for security.

    4. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're defending the terrorists, so YOU must be a terrorist too!

    5. Re:Of course. by Defenestrar · · Score: 3, Funny

      Think of the children!

    6. Re:Of course. by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Terrorists, as the name implies, operate more on the psychological impact of what they do than the physical impact. Hijacking a plane and then crashing it wherever they want has a significantly higher psychological impact on the populace than just bombing an airport (not to say that doesn't have an impact, just less of one). So even if that were the only effect, it'd still be disincentive for a terrorist act because they have limited resources and need every strike to count for it to be effective. However, the TSA has an abysmal record of preventing people that should be suspects from getting on the plane anyway.

    7. Re:Of course. by MDillenbeck · · Score: 1

      I'm curious if this level of search is unique to US airports - do you know? After all, I may consider taking a bus or train up to Canada or down to Mexico and fly from there - but if this new level of invasive "security" is universal, then I might as well not bother...

    8. Re:Of course. by anomaly256 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No shit. I can promise you right now if anyone ever did that to my daughter they wouldn't be breathing for long after. TSA, cop, a judge, The Pope, The Queen, I don't really care who it is they would be dead before they hit the ground. Duress is applicable when it's your child being attacked and molested.

    9. Re:Of course. by Virtucon · · Score: 2

      fell from the sky without hope

      Well considering the pilots in that case did all the wrong things I'd say it wasn't hope but stupidity that caused that crash. You're more likely to die from a defective plane or a pilot either lacking training or sleep.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    10. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      TSA is a US thing.

    11. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Travel by car to Canada or Mexico and fly from there. That way you have a roadtrip accross the US and a nice european vacation. Win-win, I think.

    12. Re:Of course. by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      You're not alone. Should be modded insightful.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    13. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why us terrorists only take international flights now - Mexico to New York for example.

      TSA is just BS to keep you thinking there is more of a threat now, a population in fear is one under control.

    14. Re:Of course. by JockTroll · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't dream it, be it.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    15. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Terrorists, as the name implies, operate more on the psychological impact of what they do than the physical impact.

      I travel a lot less than I did before TSA showed up. I grew up in an age when "nobody can touch you there without your permission, and if they do, you fight them. You kick, you scream, and you keep fighting until you get help".

      Todays parents have to teach their kids "nobody can touch you there without your permission unless they have a cute little patch on their shoulder. You can fight the priest if he does it. But not the people at the airport. You can't even call for the policeman who's standing 20 feet away to help you. You have to let them do it". I loved America when it was free. I'm looking to emigrate.

      Explain to me again, who are the terrorists?

      Parody from pre-2010: My First Cavity Search: Ages 6 and up.

      Reality in 2012: Four year olds. Four year olds, dude.

    16. Re:Of course. by Theophany · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In this particular instance, I believe that was the problem...

    17. Re:Of course. by mwvdlee · · Score: 3, Funny

      Exactly.
      Terrorists are no longer welcome on our airplanes.
      If you really want to terrorize people that badly, go join the TSA!

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    18. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know about Mexico, but my experience driving into Canada for a weekend trip was worse than anything I've been through at the airport. The Canadian immigration and customs searched my car and luggage thoroughly, questioned me for an hour about what I was doing and asked me to provide all kinds of documentation showing I had a job in America and was currently working. They made me show them my badge for my job, then weren't satisfied because the badge doesn't show the city I work at, so they made me get my laptop and show them the weekly reports I write. Then they didn't seem to understand that even though I'm based in Atlanta, I drive all over the Eastern US for my job and was working in Buffalo, NY for a couple of weeks. I don't know why that concept was hard for them to understand, but they just didn't get it. At one point the lady questioning me accused me of having and attitude and threatened to kick me out of the country. Out of all the countries I've been to, Canada was by far the worst to get into.

    19. Re:Of course. by benito27uk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Whilst the story in itself is deeply distressing, so are some of the comments from the Washington Post's article on it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/grandma-tsa-agents-forced-crying-4-year-old-to-undergo-tsa-pat-down-at-kan-airport-after-hug/2012/04/25/gIQAojLohT_allComments.html?ctab=all_&#comments One prime one being: "In this case, however, the child had completed screening but had contact with another member of her family who had not completed the screening process. This absolves the TSA entirely. I do not want ANYONE (muslim or christian or young or old) passing through a checkpoint after making contact with an unscreened passenger."

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

      I guess Americans must enjoy being victimized by the TSA, otherwise somebody would have done something more than protest by now..

    21. Re:Of course. by Benaiah · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well I have traveled Domestically from australia and internationally to places such as the UK recently and not once have i seen a security employee pat someone down. At one airport their was a spread leg station where you had to stand on a platform spread eagle while they wanded you but thats it. Oh and for a while there they were really anal about you taking liquids on the plane... Every person I know who has travelled to the US has nightmare stories about hour long queues at security and missing transfers due to having their entire luggage emptied for them.

    22. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      boats?

    23. Re:Of course. by anomaly256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Astroturfing, I'd wager

    24. Re:Of course. by dintech · · Score: 5, Insightful

      After 9/11, we're all terrorists now.

    25. Re:Of course. by Oswald · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This +5 Insightful communication operates at pretty much the same level as my dogs' communication when they see a stranger out the front window. The bad news: you're not as tough as you think you are. The good news: you're probably not as reckless and violent as you want to think you are, either.

      Here's hoping it's all fantasy, and you don't actually have a daughter to expose to these kinds of "Insight".

    26. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Big jaw until you're in that situation. You'll be cuffed so fucking fast you won't know what hit you.

    27. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's depressingly naive of you. Do you really think that there aren't people who are comforted by this show of security theater?

    28. Re:Of course. by anomaly256 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you have children? I'm guessing not. When someone grabs at your child wanting to touch them all over, adrenaline and rage take over all cognitive function and I doubt any TSA rentacop has reflexes to reciprocate.

    29. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      sure thing, internet tough guy. whatever you say.

    30. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I live in Canada and travel to Europe several times a year. The security is not as bad here. Also the security employees seem human, not like soulless Nazis from an American WWII film. It's really much better.

      I have followed the topic of the TSA very closely (as well as other abuses of rights in the US) and trust me, you should really worry about what your government and authorities are doing, because this stuff is not happening in Canada or Europe (except for the UK perhaps).

    31. Re:Of course. by NeverSuchBefore · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps it's just wishful thinking. I certainly hope people defending the TSA don't really believe what they're saying (even though I know some do)...

    32. Re:Of course. by anomaly256 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And if you by chance do have children and lack this primitive, important instinct then something is seriously, seriously wrong with you

    33. Re:Of course. by mynamestolen · · Score: 1, Insightful

      yep can I configure slashdot never to give me ravings like this one or I'm gunna kill myself and blow up all the world and and and and. SO THERE

      --
      work in progress
    34. Re:Of course. by noh8rz3 · · Score: 2

      I know, it's scary right? I was at my local train stop and tsa had set up a checkpoint. A dozen people with guns, and you couldn't pass without getting searched. This is in the middle o forage county California, where there re like a dozen riders at my stop! Does this mean they could also set up checkpoints at any bus stop, if they wanted? This would mean armed government checkpoints on every block of a city. Fourth amendment, please?

    35. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Civilian awareness", as you call it, is total paranoia when seeing people who don't have white skin.

    36. Re:Of course. by rioki · · Score: 2

      Depends... The UK are not too far from that. They actually had way more pat downs than the US in the 90s. Security at Frankfurt is quite tight too, but I think the mentality of the screeners is different. When you have Security forces in the US they are very aggressive; they are actually trained like that. In all other countries I know (UK, Germany, France, Netherlands) they treat you nice and ask you polity to do something. In the US if you don't immediately comply they either raise their voice or draw gun... For example in Germany they polity ask you a second time, you might have overheard. Security in the US is not a nice thing to go though...

    37. Re:Of course. by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's the problem. When was the last time you saw ONE TSA rent-a-cop at a security check point.

      Your actions while noble will likely be short lived and you will get to make a new personal friend with a glove on in the back room. It's the standard toughguy scenario we all suffer from. Yes I would defend my daughter. No I would not go apeshit at a group of armed people just because they patted her down while she was having a tantrum.

      Remember, you're no good to her dead or in prison.

    38. Re:Of course. by Gerafix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry but this is bullshit. If terrorists started bombing large queues in airports you don't think people would become rather... terrorized at the aspect of standing in large queues? I guarantee you that people stand in large queues much more often and in many more places than they do just at airports. When you're afraid of just standing in a long line anywhere that's a much stronger impact than "Oh... if I simply don't take airplanes I'm safe."

    39. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C'mon; we know that the TSA is the new preferred occupation of paedophiles and sexual control freaks. I suspect that most have to change their undies several times a day, they are so full of cum and juices.

    40. Re:Of course. by drerwk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would respectfully suggest what the girl was having was not a tantrum; perhaps more like a panic.

    41. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you're not as intelligent as you like to make yourself out to be. At least that person is saying they'd more than make a stand against someone who was making their child cry. You're just saying, "prove it" over and over again without crossing that line to make them actually do it.

      People like you suck.

    42. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called random search. If you decide to do it, then yes, you will have to search babies once in a while. And it does increases security in certain way by being unpredictable. The moment you make an exception it stops being random.

    43. Re:Of course. by DroolTwist · · Score: 2

      I'm fairly certain they aren't armed (I don't fly). Even if they were, given their 'training', if they were shooting at you, you'd most likely be the safest person in the airport.

    44. Re:Of course. by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Remember, you're no good to her dead or in prison.

      No, but you're good to everyone if you get sent there for protecting your daughter from TSA molestation. Seriously, we'd see the true colors of this nation and the control the politicians and corporate overlords really hold if someone went berserk at a checkpoint trying to protect their child. It'd be easier for the nation to swallow if it were a mother, but a father might be close enough.

    45. Re:Of course. by Wild_dog! · · Score: 1

      Security theatre is moving from a drama to a tragedy.

    46. Re:Of course. by NeverSuchBefore · · Score: 1

      It's called random search.

      It's called privacy, increased cockpit security, and civilian awareness of the consequences of plane hijackings. I'd much rather risk a terrorist attack than allow people to be randomly searched.

    47. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, I'm assuming you're a complacent American? I taught myself how to be wreckless and violent when It's needed. I wasn't born that way. I'd love for my daughter to witness family defending family. It builds the kind of character I'd appreciate. Let me just flush your values down my toilet here.

    48. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure they do this because the USA tells them to and because they're annoyed at the US procedures. Go anywhere else in relation to Canada and you do not go through that.

    49. Re:Of course. by footitch · · Score: 1

      I like the way you think. I would do the same thing. I'd get locked up, but no fucking asshole would harm my child.

    50. Re:Of course. by Swampash · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No shit. I can promise you right now if anyone ever did that to my daughter they wouldn't be breathing for long after. TSA, cop, a judge, The Pope, The Queen, I don't really care who it is they would be dead before they hit the ground. Duress is applicable when it's your child being attacked and molested.

      Me too. And then I'd be arrested and disappear into the system and maybe never come out, and that would suck for my daughter.

      So when this stuff started become standard operating procedure I decided to never again travel to the USA, and that has worked out pretty well. No conferences, no family holidays, no business trips, no standing in line while a jackbooted rentacop yells "PAPERS!" in my face.

    51. Re:Of course. by hherb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I hate to wreck your heroic fantasies - but all over the world, at different times, brutal regimes have broken families, murdered children in front of their parents eyes, raped people ... all in front of their watching powerless partners who could do bugger all. Heroic resistance of individuals is something that works only in Hollywood movies. Even in fairly recent times some so called "civilized Western" countries were still stealing children form their families for political reasons (eg google for stolen generation in Australia). It has happened in the past, is happening now, and unfortunately will probably still happen in the foreseeable future - and not just in bogeyman countries with third world dictators.

      The USA has started on a downward spiral into a totalitarian regime with no regard whatsoever for human rights or life. I am not sure whether they are past the point of no return where simple and peaceful measures such as elections could still change something - but in any case, should the TSA molest your child, you will most likely be powerlessly sobbing while their henchmen hold you down, and afterwards probably ponder in jail what good your token resistance did while your child is raised in some state orphanage.

    52. Re:Of course. by crazyjj · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, some young Arab guy coming in alone from the middle east walked right on through without a second glance because it would be politically incorrect to profile.

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    53. Re:Of course. by gsgriffin · · Score: 2, Insightful
      This is really no different than internet security. If you leave a hole, it will be exploited.

      If their rules stated that small children are excluded from searching even after they go through security and then run back and hug an adult who has not gone through security, the obvious hole would be known. Don't know about you, but I can't forget the numerous stories of terrorist strapping explosives to women and sending them out to be blown up.

      --
      jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
    54. Re:Of course. by Chrisq · · Score: 1, Troll

      Whilst the story in itself is deeply distressing, so are some of the comments from the Washington Post's article on it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/grandma-tsa-agents-forced-crying-4-year-old-to-undergo-tsa-pat-down-at-kan-airport-after-hug/2012/04/25/gIQAojLohT_allComments.html?ctab=all_&#comments One prime one being: "In this case, however, the child had completed screening but had contact with another member of her family who had not completed the screening process. This absolves the TSA entirely. I do not want ANYONE (muslim or christian or young or old) passing through a checkpoint after making contact with an unscreened passenger."

      We know that Muslims use children as bombs so it is a legitimate worry

    55. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Seriously, we'd see the true colors of this nation and the control the politicians and corporate overlords really hold if someone went berserk at a checkpoint trying to protect their child.

      Perhaps. My sister completely flipped out years ago, when the TSA basically released her 2-year-old into the crowded airport (she was at the "terrible twos" stage) while they held my sister and brother-in-law back because the metal detector had beeped. They literally took away the child from her parents, and then paid no attention when she bolted into the crowd.

      My sister was hauled off for "special screening", cursing them at the top of her lungs in english and french, in a pluperfect rage, because she tried to defy the TSA and catch my niece. My brother-in-law kept his head, kowtowed obsequiously to the tinpot tyrants, and was allowed through once they'd figured out what forgotten bit of metal was causing the beeping. By the time he found his daughter, half an hour later, they'd finished ritually humiliating my sister (she's an American citizen, so she got the short course) and they managed to make their plane with a minute or two to spare.

      During all of this, literally hundreds of people stood by watching and did nothing. So I guess we did see the "true colors of this nation" as you said. It's the color of terrorized weaklings.

    56. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of like the Nazi's huh? Everybody already knows what happened there, and there's a LOT of people that are ready when the switch get's flipped.

    57. Re:Of course. by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      Well, in a recent court case in Massachusetts translating Al Qaeda messages to English was seen as "providing material support." Elsewhere, teaching terrorists how to legally transition into the normal economy is also "providing material support." Soon even trying to defend them legally will be seen the same. That's when we know we've all lost.

    58. Re:Of course. by CrazyDuke · · Score: 2

      It is not that people lack this instinct. It is just that the instinct to submit to pack leaders tends to override this and other such gut responses. For instance, the Milgram Experiment covers the aversion to torture and murder being (easily) overridden. Hense, the urge to deride the TSA as rent-a-cops and other such allusions to their inferiority in the pack when justifying not complying.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    59. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you getting locked up doesn't harm your child you're probably not a good parent. He wouldn't win that battle with the TSA. He'll just get tased or worse.

      Lastly, if you're going to allow the TSA to pat down adults for stupid reasons, you're going to have to allow the TSA to pat down children too, for the same stupid reasons.

    60. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't really know what you're talking about.

    61. Re:Of course. by TBedsaul · · Score: 2

      This comment is only "insightful" in the sense that it gives insight into the kind of shameful, pants-wetting fear that has permeated the "home of the brave".

    62. Re:Of course. by f3rret · · Score: 0

      Nope. All lies.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    63. Re:Of course. by anomaly256 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We know the germans used IBM counting machines to classify and track jews too. Maybe we should hand in our computers. Tyrants use media to brainwash and spread propaganda so we should throw out or TVs and unplug the internet. See the problem with such arguments is that while indeed being facts, they completely fly in the face of common sense with their rationales.

    64. Re:Of course. by Zibodiz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Citation please? According to Wikipedia, the only terrorist group to employ this tactic is Hamas, even though Israeli security does screen women -- which rather invalidates the theory.

    65. Re:Of course. by PIBM · · Score: 1

      You know that you can drive to Canada or Mexico and fly out from there (well, if you aren't too far from the borders...) ? Before the TSA procedure I was actually driving into the USA to fly out, as it's not far from here and we could easily save 400$ per passenger rather than leaving from montreal which is at the same distance. No way will I ever even think about doing that again..

    66. Re:Of course. by asdf7890 · · Score: 1

      But other countries may have agencies in the same position following similar guidelines. He wasn't asking if the TSA specifically is a global thing, but if this level of paranoia generally is.

    67. Re:Of course. by errandum · · Score: 1

      This is not true. If you fly from portugal, brasil or the UK to the US (at least those three) you pass through absurd scrutiny too. Some countries are banned to fly to the US precisely because they can't implement it.

      It's a US thing, but if you plan to land on the US you're gonna have a bad time with it.

    68. Re:Of course. by benito27uk · · Score: 1

      And those unfortunate children brainwashed into carrying out suicide attacks are typically teenagers living in abject poverty and not four year old girls living typical suburban lives.

    69. Re:Of course. by Wovel · · Score: 1

      Well TSA "agents" are not actually law enforcement officers. I would be a lot more worried about the local or airport cops that are usually within 20 feet of the checkpoint.

    70. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not denying crashing a plane has a strong psychological impact, but a few things to consider:

      - Hijacking a plane is no longer possible thanks to locked doors in cockpits. Unless the terrorists somehow manage to smuggle a blowtorch on the plane, they can't take control of it. Of course this wouldn't stop bombing a plane, but the psychological impact is not much greater than bombing the line-up at the airport security (like happened in Russia last year).

      - Protecting planes is nice, but as you say there are other targets out there, some of which probably have much stronger psychological impact than a plane.
      How about bombing a mall full of Christmas shoppers? I'm sure this would really hurt Americans - finding out one of their most precious holidays, a holiday about peace and generosity no less, is not safe from terrorism.
      Or how about shooting a school full of children? Considering how little schools can do to protect against students shooting their classmates, what could they possibly do against a couple of trained terrorists with automatic guns?

      - By protecting planes so much and making people feel safe, you increase the psychological impact an attack on another target would have. If terrorists blew up another plane, Americans would be shocked but would also think "we knew planes weren't safe, no surprise really". Now if terrorists bombed a very different target, even one that normally would have a small psychological impact, Americans will realize they aren't safe anywhere - not in the street, not at work, not at school, not at a baseball match, not at the store, not on the highway, not at the theater, not in public parks... And this realization that no place is safe will be the huge psychological impact. Many say Americans became paranoid after 9/11 - I hope we never see how paranoid they'll be once they realize they're not even safe in places they go to every week.
      So at least for this reason, not going overboard with safety and just telling Americans "there's no such thing as perfect security, deal with it" you might reduce the risk of another attack. Less confidence in safety = less surprise = less psychological impact = less incentives for terrorists to do another attack = lesser risk of an attack.

      - There's also the question of whether or not another terrorist attack could occur. 9/11 was a first in the USA since... forever. First time a plane was destroyed like this. It's been 10 years now, without any other serious attempts (the underwear and shoe bombers were poorly organized, definitely not as serious as 9/11. They also occurred when the USA was invading Iraq and Afghanistan, so it's not clear if those attacks were anti-USA or just a form of warfare for the terrorists. And anyway, the TSA did not help against this at all).
      Europe might also be a good indication: attacks occurred in Madrid and London in retaliation for those countries' involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. Other countries like France were also involved in those wars and therefore at threat. Yet only these two attacks occurred, despite France, Germany and others not taking any particularly drastic security measures. The option and the reason to attack are there, yet it isn't happening. Maybe nobody really wants to attack that much?
      The death toll of terrorism in the USA is small. In the 10 years since (and including) 9/11, more lives were lost to car accidents or smoking than to 9/11. The money and time invested in the TSA could have saved thousands of poor people from death by providing them with food, shelter or medical help. If the purpose is to save lives, focusing so much on terrorism is absurd.
      And of course, the question remains: how many people will die from cancer due to the nude scanner? Probably more than terrorism could kill.

      - Finally, there's the question of "is this the only option?"
      Why are the USA at risk of attacks while other western countries, like those of Europe and Canada, are not? (I know a few attacks occurred in Europe, however these were in response to the war

    71. Re:Of course. by Wovel · · Score: 1

      They aren't. The police are always very close by though. You would get a good lick or two in before they put you down. May be worth it.

    72. Re:Of course. by Evanisincontrol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And after you were thrown in jail (assuming you weren't killed by police officers during your violent rampage), who would protect your 4 year old daughter then? Do you truly think her childhood would be better with you dead or in jail?

      Yes, the situation you describe is a shitty one, but taking the short-sided approach of "kill the guy who's close by" is not the best way to protect your family. You are responsible for protecting your child her entire life, not just for that one instant. So grow the fuck up and learn how to control your primal instincts, or else you will indeed be letting your family down.

    73. Re:Of course. by Wovel · · Score: 1

      The TSA can't make you go anywhere all they can do is prevent you fro going in.

    74. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, ALL the many times that's happened in any airport. It's crazy how common people are blowing themselves up these days.

    75. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! just go along with the red coats and hand over your guns, no need to have a massacre here in boston.

      PS if you didn't get this, google boston massacre.

    76. Re:Of course. by b0bby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As an actual parent, who has flown with them numerous times (including returning with an 18 month old right after the shoe bomber & having her shoes checked), I have found that the parent remaining calm and explaining what's going on goes a long way towards avoiding panic & meltdowns. The couple of times the kids have had light patdowns, I didn't see it as molestation; we've never had the full new procedure. The TSA grunts are just doing their jobs, they aren't getting any kicks from patting down the kids, the kids don't need to freak out. I think in this case the idiots should have used more tact, but saying you'd go all ninja on them is a crock.
      Don't get me wrong, I think it's all bs & I fly as little as possible these days, but a patdown is not an attack.

    77. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      if terrorists wanted bomb something, they'd do it AT THE GIANT CLUSTERFUCK SECURITY CHECKPOINTS.

    78. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The TSA is the Terrorist Surrogate Army.

      The terrorists won, but since they're a rather small group, they've managed to convince the American people and (more importantly, their government) to install an occupying force at every domestic airport plus no few other places where the American people would be otherwise free to travel about.

      In other words, they're doing what everyone else does these days. Outsourcing the job to foreign (in this case US) labor.

      And thus, the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave shows itself for the Land of the Controlled and the Home of the Cowards.

      Sooner or later, irrespective of whether or not we have a TSA, another terrorist attack will succeed. If the administration is Democratic, Republicans will claim it's because Democrats are soft on terrorism and haven't been doing enough to keep us safe. If the administration is Republican, Republicans will point and say that it's the fault of the weak-kneed soft-headed Liberals hamstringing their valiant efforts to keep us safe. The Democrats will say equally pointless and revolting things, since party means more than country or principles these days. But that's just a sideshow.

      This nation was not founded by people who wanted more than anything to be "safe". When the next plane goes down - and sooner or later it will, it can be full of screaming heroes or screaming cowardly slaves. They'll die either way, TSA or no TSA, and given the "last war" mentality of the TSA, it probably won't make a lick of difference how much we're groped or stripped. It's up to us to decide which we want to be.

      Freedom isn't maintained by a bunch of 2nd-Amendment shouters hauling automatic weapons through the woods. The 2nd Amendment goes down the toilet once you set foot in an airport. The 2nd Amendment can't even protect against domestic government agression. A bunch of people toting their own personal Kalishnikovs and Uzis don't stand a chance against drones, tanks, and backpack nukes - it takes a well-regulated militia to do that. On the other hand, freedom very definitely is maintained when people stand up and say "Enough is Enough!", whether they're armed or not. And sometimes better when they are not. Especially when they stand up at the ballot boxes and vote for people who'll do what they demand instead of simply voting for whoever best quacks out the party line that they happen to agree with.

    79. Re:Of course. by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 1

      When I travelled to Germany from New Zealand via Bangkok (I never take the flights that stop at US airports), I was never searched. I went through the 'nothing to declare' door, there were no security staff at all, just an empty room. On the other side of the room there was a hallway and that had a doorway to the parking area outside the building. Of course that was after getting off the plane. Getting on the plane always involves a metal detector and a luggage x ray. My bag got searched once when I went to Australia. But at Auckland, Bangkok, Singapore, Berlin, Frankfurt it was just the basics. I remember in Bangkok they had a special area of the airport cordoned off where flights to the US were leaving. There were huge security lines and people getting pat down and questioned. So yes and no, this is not limited to US airports, but it is limited to flights to and from the US. The weird thing is that although it is designed to give Americans the impression that terrorists are everywhere, as an outsider it only gives the impression that the US is full of terrorists and everywhere else is safe. My brother flew to Germany from Egypt during the protests there and was never searched. I remember when I was younger and I went through Auckland airport with tobacco and alcohol, the form said you have to declare these, so I went through the goods to declare room. There was one security guy there. I told him I had alcohol and tobacco and he gave me this exasperated look like I was wasting his time and pushed me toward the exit.

    80. Re:Of course. by Jiro · · Score: 1

      Money is fungible. If you provide "peaceful activities" such as translation for terrorists, that's money the terrorists can use for terrorism instead of spending so much on the peaceful activities themselves.

    81. Re:Of course. by penguinbrat · · Score: 1

      Thinking of the children only applies when your civilian I guess and not employed by a billion dollar governmental agency apparently...

      On a side note...

      FTFA....

      "The TSA released a statement Tuesday saying it explained to the family why additional security procedures were necessary and that agents didn't suspect or suggest the child was carrying a firearm."

      So they did all this, not because the felt there was a potential threat - but because of why? Then you have this story as well where after the family was allowed through, the TSA spent an hour looking for them to force them back for a rescreening. Considering that they apparently dont do very well at actually finding potentially dangerous items (hell even my own Dad found he had a 4" blade on his carry on items he forgot about) the only 'reason' for all this is to keep the general populace in check and forced into submission?

    82. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think if more people were to this disposition the TSA would be gone. If every single father argued with the TSA guy before going through which I see as completely reasonable and any judge with a daughter would too, the lines would grind to a stop. The fathers out there could stop this madness without laying a single punch. Complacency is what allows this all to happen. That is why the TSA freak when anyone shows any amount of resistance to this farce and has them arrested. The system is so totalitarian its freaky that America allows it.

    83. Re:Of course. by noh8rz3 · · Score: 1

      also, they're expanding the scope of their searches. The other day I got searched at a train station in orange county, CA! If their justificaiton is they can protect all transit systems, then does this mean they can set up checkpoints on every city block with a bus stop? What if they find something? As far as I know it's not illegal to take a gun on a train. what if someone has some pot, which is obv not a terror threat? do they get arrested for that? how is that not a general random checkpoint? papers, please!

    84. Re:Of course. by noh8rz3 · · Score: 0

      i absolutely agree. I would much prefer that the TSA profiles, which violates the civil rights of some, then randomly "search" four year olds and me for that matter. how can one be unthinkably bad but the other be ok?

    85. Re:Of course. by tilante · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here's the thing: No one's saying small children should be excluded from screening. What they're saying is that a screaming, panicked child should be handled with care and gentleness. There's no reason for adult security officers to be yelling at a four-year-old child. It's not going to help the situation, whether the child is doing anything wrong or not. Since you apparently didn't read the article in full: The adult *had* gone through security, and had set off the metal detector. The adult had been put aside for a pat-down screening. The child ran over and hugged the adult. The family's suggestion was that since the attempts to pat down the child were distressing her, the agents have the child go through the metal detector again, or use a wand to check her for metal objects. The TSA agents insisted on a pat-down. Further, they wanted to take the distressed child to another room, away from and out of sight of all of the adults who were with her, and search her there. This distressed the child further. From what we're given in the story, the adults with the child were behaving reasonably. They suggested alternatives to patting down the child, since that was distressing her. They were willing to have the child be patted down, but they were not willing to have the TSA agents take her out of their sight to search her. A fair amount of the traveling public are children, and many children do get upset easily. The TSA should be training their staff on dealing properly with upset children.

    86. Re:Of course. by toriver · · Score: 1

      Blowing up a bomb in an airport causes far more economic damage (since the airport would shut down) and panic among far more people than a single plane (especially after the introduction of reinforced cockpit doors). After all, planes crash for many reasons already, and people still take the chance.

    87. Re:Of course. by grahamm · · Score: 1

      The solution to that problem is quote simple. Once someone, of any age, has passed the security checkpoint they should not be allowed back through it "the wrong way" to the non-secure area. The technology for this is not new, I first encountered it about 25 years ago. To pass the checkpoint you enter into a 'single person sized' cubicle and the door closes behind you, the exit door will not open until both the entrance door has closed behind you and the security officer presses the button to allow you to proceed.

    88. Re:Of course. by strength_of_10_men · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't know about you, but I can't forget the numerous stories of terrorist strapping explosives to women and sending them out to be blown up.

      There have been women suicide bombers, but you're implying that these women had no agency in the bombing. Please cite an incident that shows otherwise.

      But the obvious solution in this case is to have the child go through the scanners again. Why the pat down? Either the scanners are good enough to detect anything that could have been passed from an unscreened passenger to a screened passenger, or they're not. Unless they are implicitly acknowledging that latter...

    89. Re:Of course. by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the TSA hadn't been so horrible and bastardly during this encounter, nobody would have heard of this happening except the people in that immediate area. There would have been no story, no news, nobody would know or care.

      I doubt any other passengers are going to complain that a 4-year-old hugged their family member, and I doubt that it's going to be a blogworthy encounter for anyone involved...until the heavy-handed retardmobile of the TSA steps in and puts all of their limbs squarely in their mouths.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    90. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And here comes the important word: it's an instinct, not a decision to do something. As hherb already pointed out too many people all over the world let their children undergo far worse every day because their decision making process suppresses that instinct -- as hopefully would yours: "that asshole is touching my daughter, I should rip his hands off. But I won't because that could mean she actually gets hurt in the chaos or loses her father because the other guards would shoot me".

      TL;DR: the most stupid animals act as you say you would, smart animals (such as most humans) don't.

    91. Re:Of course. by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

      Why would the TSA officer's corpse need gloves?

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    92. Re:Of course. by No2Gates · · Score: 0

      I agree, the TSA has gone way too far patting down toddlers.
      Come on, let's just use common sense when looking at who you should pat down.

      --
      Every time you call tech support, a little kitten dies.
    93. Re:Of course. by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which is funny, because they love to tell you that you can't leave the line once you line up. This is tantamount to false arrest, since they don't have the authority for arrest.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    94. Re:Of course. by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

      The USA isn't so bad for non-citizens with legit visas. Just take the train - because as you can see, air travel is now fucked thanks to Uncle Sam.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    95. Re:Of course. by nonades · · Score: 5, Insightful

      9/11 really did change everything...

    96. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heroic resistance of individuals is something that works only in Hollywood movies.

      Highlighted the key phrase there.

      And the only way people can manage heroic resistance collectively is by agreeing to, and then asserting, a shared basis of standards, rules, and behavior. Sort of like a mass adoption of a stable OS.

      I suggest the Constitution and the original system of American Common Law that the Union was initially founded upon. It was clear, functional, simple and elegant before the feature creep took place. It's something nearly everyone can agree upon, at least for long enough to re-assert a system functional enough to enable collective user customizations and upgrades.

    97. Re:Of course. by zitsky · · Score: 1

      So, we should all just roll over and give in to any abuse of power? What an unbelievable attitude!

    98. Re:Of course. by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      By "Muslims" do you mean "Islamic Extremists"? There is a pretty wide difference there.

      Also, the actual act of using children as soldiers/suicide bombers is much more prevalent in African, Eastern Asian, and South American countries than it is in the middle east. It was a common tactic among South American rebels during the 80s, and it is a common situation in Africa among lawless organizations and people trying to coup various countries.

      It's nice to see the "brown people are terrorists" propaganda has properly programmed you to jump to Middle-Eastern people when you think terrorist. I will report back to Psi Ops and the Ministry of Disinformation that their efforts are worthwhile.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    99. Re:Of course. by shentino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Quite right.

      Get enough people bottlenecked at a checkpoint and you just give the terrorists an easier target.

    100. Re:Of course. by SecurityGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't know about you, but I can't forget the numerous stories of terrorist strapping explosives to women and sending them out to be blown up.

      Really? Funny, but I can't remember a single example of a 4-year-old obviously American child traveling in the US with her grandmother who has ever blown anything up.

      Your internet security comparison is spot on, however like most internet security people, you fail to understand that sometimes holes are OK. Plugging holes costs something. In the IT world, plugging holes costs money and sometimes makes other work impossible to do or more difficult, which costs time and money. We need to strike a balance, not provide impenetrable security at any cost. In this case, plugging holes costs you your privacy and perhaps your right to protect your children (Did they seriously say they wanted to take a 4-year-old girl to a private room WITHOUT a family member present?).

      Just doing some quick googling, about 640 million times last year, a passenger got on a plane in the US and flew somewhere. Zero times they were blown up by a terrorist. If you extend that back 11 years so we can catch 9/11, that's ~7 billion passengers and 246 who were blown up by a terrorist. Well, crashed into something, and again, zero who were killed by 4-year-old American child terrorists.

      Maybe I'm just not risk averse enough, but I prefer the 28,000,000 to one chance terrorists are going to take out the plane, or almost infinity-to-one that it's going to be done by a 4-year-old, over the much-smaller-number to 1 chance that my kid is going to be groped.

    101. Re:Of course. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      You voluntarily surrendered your privacy when you decided to fly on a commercial flight and enter the 'privately owned' grounds of the airport.. Your choice. you don't *have* to fly, its not a constitutional right, nor is TWA a government entity anyway so its not bound by the Constitution and its amendments.

      Everyone knows up-front what to expect, so why do people act surprised when they f-ing agree to terms and conditions when they buy the ticket? Don't like the rules, don't fly,.

      Now if this was random stopping of people on the public streets, we would have something to talk about.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    102. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you posting this while hiding under your bed?

    103. Re:Of course. by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 0

      You don't know what short term memory is, do you?

    104. Re:Of course. by dcollins · · Score: 1

      And yet, to date, not a single parent has failed to allow TSA to grope their children when so demanded.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    105. Re:Of course. by sycodon · · Score: 2

      It's not about a rule that says children should be excluded. It's about common sense.

      This happened because the mentally challenged TSA morons saw that the kid "touched" grandma and one idiot even thought she could have passed a gun.

      There just another story today on drudge about a little girl with cerebral palsy being patted down.

      TSA: Government Work Program for the unemployable.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    106. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The biggest probem with all this bold remarks about you can't do anything about it (which is what your SHIT actually IS), is that it condones and accepts that which should NOT be acceptable for any reason within the confines of this Nation.

    107. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether you like the whole idea of TSA airport security or not, some random person was not grabbing the child. Do you respond the same way when a doctor or nurse attempts to examine your screaming kid?

    108. Re:Of course. by shentino · · Score: 1

      Elections NEVER were a check on things.

      Once the bastards get into office they're untouchable until the next election and until then they're free to earn themselves a cushy private sector job by ass-raping us.

    109. Re:Of course. by 1s44c · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No shit. I can promise you right now if anyone ever did that to my daughter they wouldn't be breathing for long after. TSA, cop, a judge, The Pope, The Queen, I don't really care who it is they would be dead before they hit the ground. Duress is applicable when it's your child being attacked and molested.

      It's going to happen one day. Some TSA goon is going to molest the wrong little girl. It seems few Americans will stand up for their own rights but they might just stand behind someone who stood up for his.

      I'm in Europe and can't believe what you people put up with.

    110. Re:Of course. by shentino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure, go ahead and blame the victim when the system is at fault.

    111. Re:Of course. by shentino · · Score: 1

      Ironically the people most in need of emmigration are the very same ones that have to bend over and let the TSA ass rape them to get a plane ticket.

    112. Re:Of course. by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      During all of this, literally hundreds of people stood by watching and did nothing. So I guess we did see the "true colors of this nation" as you said. It's the color of terrorized weaklings.

      Quoted for fucking emphasis.

    113. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is really no different than internet security. If you leave a hole, it will be exploited.

      The TSA want to exploit childrens holes?

    114. Re:Of course. by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, but you're good to everyone if you get sent there for protecting your daughter from TSA molestation. Seriously, we'd see the true colors of this nation and the control the politicians and corporate overlords really hold if someone went berserk at a checkpoint trying to protect their child. It'd be easier for the nation to swallow if it were a mother, but a father might be close enough.

      Tomorrows' headline (Slashdot version): "Father Imprisoned for Defending Toddler from Physical Abuse at TSA Checkpoint"

      Tomorrow's headline (TSA Spin version, actually reported): "Violent Attacker Imprisoned for Seriously Injuring Anti-Terrorism Personnel after Checkpoint Security Breach".

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    115. Re:Of course. by 1s44c · · Score: 4, Insightful

      9/11 really did change everything...

      It did.. These evil people that want total control over you, they are running your country.

    116. Re:Of course. by PhilJC · · Score: 3, Funny

      He knew it a long time ago but has since forgotten..

    117. Re:Of course. by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      In the old times of the Soviet Union, I used to hear the "internal passport" as an example of the lack of democracy there. The USSR has been dead for all these years and USA, the self-proclaimed beacon of democracy, turned into the same. Go figure.

      Maybe it's a fatality: Every society model, left to its own devices, will turn into an Orwellian dystopia after some amount of time. It's just getting faster while human evolution accelerates.

    118. Re:Of course. by AdrianKemp · · Score: 1

      Well that's not really true at all is it?

      I know of several people who no longer fly to/through/in the US because of the TSA.

      While it's true that I don't know of anyone who's actually lined up and then left the airport when the TSA officer decided they wanted to molest a child I'm sure that's happened as well.

    119. Re:Of course. by 1s44c · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Milgram experiment was about inflicting pain on strangers. If you setup the same experiment but inflict pain on family members intead the experiment would not last long because the researchers would be dead.

    120. Re:Of course. by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's not freaky at all. America is, and has always been, a fundamentally fascist country. The Constitution is an aberration, not the cultural norm. Don't believe me? Look at the history of every internal, domestic conflict in this country. Every last one of them are tinged with the constant abuse of state authority by merging it with corporate (in the sense of social collectives that Mussolini meant in his often misinterpreted statement that fascism is the merger of the state and the corporation) interests.

      Respect for the Constitution and a legacy of social independence born from the frontier experience of the 19th century that carried with it a tradition of weak corporatism (again, in Mussolini's sense of the word) has prevented American fascism from devolving into Totalitarianism (like Mussolini's Italy, or Nazi Germany), but that doesn't make the country and the culture any less fascist. Now that the frontier experience (and it's associated attitude of independence from social organization) is a long dead memory, expect that inherent fascism to inexorably head towards totalitarianism.

    121. Re:Of course. by lexsird · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I swear to God they are trying to provoke domestic terrorism with the TSA. We don't have a terrorist problem, and this has proven to be a serious joke on us at our own expense of our freedoms and money. They need desperately to justify their jackboot on our necks and the pillaging of our wallets. Perhaps if they manhandle enough women and children someone will react and give them the excuses they want for more draconian measures to protect their oligarchies.

      We need to be cool, and just remember this when it comes time for elections. Our Revolution 2.0 needs to be in the form of educated and informed voters sending these villains packing into the annals of our dark histories.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    122. Re:Of course. by bistromath007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here's the thing: No one's saying small children should be excluded from screening.

      Where did you get that idea? There shouldn't be any screening. And if there truly must be, it needs to be applied by humans, not robots made of meat. A human fucking being would not have searched that child.

    123. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask the Russians about it and you'll see. There have been a couple of examples of women strapping explosives onto themselves and boarding planes to avenge their sons' deaths

    124. Re:Of course. by jjohn · · Score: 1

      mod this up

    125. Re:Of course. by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      we should throw out or TVs and unplug the internet

      Actually [CARRIER LOST]

    126. Re:Of course. by jjohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, I am saying we don't need to screen 4 year olds.

      Seriously as a culture, we have lost our minds.

    127. Re:Of course. by Evanisincontrol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The system is broken, but that doesn't allow the OP to abscond his responsibilities as a parent. When he's in jail and the mother has to work a triple shift to support their children, or they go into adoption system because the mother can't support them alone, the OP can't just sit back and say "Totally not my fault in any way! It's THE SYSTEM! There's nothing else I could have done, my hands are clean!" I agree, the system is broken and needs to be fixed (or completely rebuilt from scratch). However, until the system is fixed, when presented with two bad choices he still needs to pick the better of the two. He doesn't get a free pass to do whatever he wants just because he was dealt a shitty hand.

    128. Re:Of course. by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But the obvious solution in this case is to have the child go through the scanners again. Why the pat down? Either the scanners are good enough to detect anything that could have been passed from an unscreened passenger to a screened passenger, or they're not. Unless they are implicitly acknowledging that latter...

      Except the security isn't the real deal... it's the Pavlovian response of "Yes, I will comply" they're looking for. They must escalate any situation where it appears a traveller--any traveller, even a frightened child--isn't in total subservience and compliance to the rules. Seperating the child is about inducing terror, and specifically conditioning that child to ALWAYS conform to authority. It isn't a coincidence that there are so many incidents with young kids that the TSA is involved in--the youngest generation is being conditioned to expect invasions of their private bodies rather than resist them, as our generation does. They want to turn these invasive "screenings" into part of the background noise of American life so they can ease similar invasive "screenings" into other parts of our lives. Why?

      TSA finds far more cash and drugs than they do guns and bombs--and that's what they're really looking for. Cash they can seize (the booty funds "overhead," leaving more money from taxpayers to spend on boondoggle body scanner devices) is the name of the game. Some police agencies get vast swath of their funding from such seizure activities.

      --
      Who did what now?
    129. Re:Of course. by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      You and GP are both racist and stupid. Random search is much more secure than profiling. Profiling supplies information to the bad guys about what the authorities are searching for. If they started searching all dark skin guys all the bad guys had to do was to get a white folk to carry the goods past security. There are scientific papers about it.

      You two idiots would consider me a suspect, because of the way I look. I'm European, from a Catholic country. I don't personally know any Muslim. I've never even been near the Middle East.

      And you do realise there are bad guys who are pinky white Americans do you?

    130. Re:Of course. by NeverSuchBefore · · Score: 1

      You voluntarily surrendered your privacy when you decided to fly on a commercial flight and enter the 'privately owned' grounds of the airport.. Your choice. you don't *have* to fly, its not a constitutional right, nor is TWA a government entity anyway so its not bound by the Constitution and its amendments.

      This is a government organization. This, without a doubt, violates the spirit of the constitution.

      Do you think, "If you don't like it, move out of the country!" would be a valid thing to say someone whose freedoms were violated? No? Why would this be any different?

      Everyone knows up-front what to expect, so why do people act surprised when they f-ing agree to terms and conditions when they buy the ticket? Don't like the rules, don't fly,.

      Yeah, if they know up-front, it's perfectly acceptable, right? If you don't like it, get out. Go to the back of the bus! You knew what you were getting into when you stepped on the bus!

      Although, in this case, since the TSA basically works for the government...

      Now if this was random stopping of people on the public streets, we would have something to talk about.

      Please! There's no explicit constitutional right to not be randomly searched whilst walking down the street! You could be a terrorist, after all. Who cares about the spirit of the constitution?

      How anyone can seriously defend the TSA is beyond me...

    131. Re:Of course. by lexsird · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I feel your pain and my sentiments about this run bloody as well. But lets not waste that passion by beating our breasts, save it up to fuel your political motivations. Instead, find a candidate that will represent your views on this and work towards getting this person elected. It's a win/win situation to get involved. If your candidate wins, your efforts are paid off, you have helped make America a better place.

      If your candidate loses, then you have made friends and bonds with others who are at least passionate enough to spend time fighting this evil politically. Face time, in real life, away from the prying eyes of spies from corporations and governments, among real people is were effective movements start. The power of "word of mouth" in an age of instant communication should never be underestimated.

      Inform and educated your friends.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    132. Re:Of course. by archen · · Score: 5, Funny

      We'll just put more security checkpoints before the security checkpoints.

    133. Re:Of course. by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Flying back from Manila I have to say that Filipino airport security is both more stringent, more serious, and more professional. They searched EVERY carry on by hand, and they did it quickly, professionally, and without incident (granted, in Manila they search every hand bag carried into the shopping malls too and there are armed guards with shotguns on many corners). It was a little unnerving (lots of armed guards), but less so than TSA checkpoints. Everything they were doing made sense, and was done seriously. Overdone, and still unnecessary, but it wasn't the senseless theater that the TSA is.

    134. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your universe sounds nice. I'd like to live there instead of here.

    135. Re:Of course. by usuallylost · · Score: 2

      I think he maybe referring to this case in Iraq. Basically they, presumable Al-Qaida, strapped remote control bombs to two mentally handicapped women with down syndrome and sent them into the target area and detonated them. Odds are the two bombers had no comprehension of what was happening. I don't have the articles but I know I have read of this tactic in other places as well. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22945797/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/handicapped-bombers-kill-dozens-iraq/#.T5lY3tWt0tU

    136. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big jaw until you're in that situation. You'll be cuffed so fucking fast you won't know what hit you.

      I'm not so sure. These TSA staff look like half trained thugs with little physical fitness and no real ability to defend themselves. I'm betting a physically fit man with a tiny amount of boxing or martial arts experience who's seeing red mist will be able to beat 4 or 5 of them into the ground before the police turn up.

      No doubt we will find out sooner or later if the TSA carry on with their policy of child rape.

    137. Re:Of course. by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      No, most other countries use behavior screening before physical screening.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    138. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, if there was a violent revolution against an oppressive government (for example), and we desperately needed participants, parents shouldn't go? If it's in the name of freedom, sacrifices are necessary.

      Although I'm not sure randomly killing TSA agents would solve anything...

    139. Re:Of course. by operagost · · Score: 1

      Have no fear: the State department just declared the war on terror over, so I'm sure that TSA regulations will be relaxed immediately and the troublesome parts of the USA Patriot act will be repealed.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    140. Re:Of course. by sirlark · · Score: 1

      "Your honor, when I punched officer whatnot in the face, he had his hand on my four year old daughters crotch. Shouldn't he be on the sex offender list?"

    141. Re:Of course. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      there are NO politicians who will dare revoke the tsa.

      why? you KNOW why.

      if they do and an 'incident happens' they'll get kicked out of office. and some smiling republican will come in and take his place and make things even worse.

      this is impossible to solve. I see no solution in sight. I've given up hope that we can fix our own brain-deadness in this matter.

      for thousands of years (or longer) we have been slaves to religion. why? based on fear!

      same here. we will never give up the tsa or equiv because those in power LOVE to dangle the fear card in front of us. they know its a sure way to control us.

      tsa is here permanently and no polly will EVER disband it. they think its career suicide. and given how sheep-like most of the world's population is, it might just be.

      what I'm curious about is how long a reverse-terrorist attack will take to happen (enough westerners are so pissed off at islam that I do wonder how long it will be before some christian crashes a plane into a mosque or equiv).

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    142. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From Kansas?

    143. Re:Of course. by residieu · · Score: 1

      I was pleasantly surprised when the Mexican airport didn't require me to take off my shoes. Then I felt sad that I'd grown so used to it in the US...

    144. Re:Of course. by xystren · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately it has turned into a pissing match. I'm a Canadian citizen who is completing my masters degree in Chicago, and I run into this on the US side of the border. Ultimately it comes down to which border crossing/pre-screening you happen to go through. The 2nd to last time I entered Canada, I ended up "hanging out" (please note the sarcasm) with the US side for almost 3 hours getting questioned, my pockets gone through, getting questioned about the various different certifications I had, being accused that I was working in the US without authorization, my vehicle being completely unpacked and search, accused of using/transporting drugs, questioned about what text books I had (they were psychology related) [ok, this is Slashdot, go ahead, open fire], everything they could come up with. I was even asked why I didn't have an alcohol or cigarettes on me (WTF?!?!?!? - I rarely drink, and don't smoke). All this to leave the US to return to my home country? WTF is up with that?

      Once they finally release me, on the Canadian side, I spend less than 20 minutes (had some paperwork to fill out, as I was re-importing my vehicle back into Canada). Who would have though I would have spend more time on US side when I was leaving the US

      It goes both ways. When flying to the US, pre-clearence is a honorific experience in Winnipeg, Toronto, Calgary, yet Vancouver is pleasant. Minneapolis/St. Paul (MSP) is my preferred point of entry when traveling to the US. Their officials there are friendly, well trained, and professional. Even when questioned further at MSP, due to the red flag due to the previously described exit situation, it was still a reasonable process to go through. The more than several times I've gone through MSP they have been extremely efficient and professional.

      It goes both ways, and there are so many variables that make the experience a positive or negative one. I've experienced both in this care.

    145. Re:Of course. by 1s44c · · Score: 2

      Don't get me wrong, I think it's all bs & I fly as little as possible these days, but a patdown is not an attack.

      You go patdown random women in the street then try to tell the court that it was not an attack.

      It's sexual assult on the street and it's sexual assult in an airport.

    146. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are making a powerful point but you lost at least half of your audience by being such an asshole about it. And "pinky white"? Fuck you, douchebag.

    147. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really want to leave security up to "common sense" of each person doing this sucky job? I don't like the job or what they have to do, BUT I would get really upset if a plane carrying my family went down in a ball of fire because some TSA person used their common sense and allowed something through.

    148. Re:Of course. by Chelloveck · · Score: 1

      Yup. If there was a group of people dead-set on destroying the United States, that's where they should start. Bomb the security checkpoints. By definition they're insecure areas, and they have lots of people milling about. Bomb an airport security queue and you'll stop all air travel for a couple days. Bomb two or three simultaneously and you'll stop air travel for weeks. Randomly bomb other queues, such as train stations or sporting events or concerts, and you'll panic the the nation so badly we'll collectively shit ourselves to death. You win! It'd be easy to do, especially if you have a few people willing to martyr themselves for the cause.

      Now, this hasn't happened yet in over a decade since the WTC attacks. What does that tell you about the existence of the bogeyman that we're being told is lurking just around the corner?

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    149. Re:Of course. by fifewiskey · · Score: 0

      If our liberties and privacy are constantly eroded to the point that 4 year old girls are put under this type of scrutiny, what are we defending as a nation anymore? To me, it seems the government is becoming the biggest threat to our basic freedoms. So, I’ll just make sure my shoes and laptop are in different plastic containers and no metal is in my shorts while some guy scans me and uploads the naked scans to the internet for the lolz.

      All this for a class and some good coffee

    150. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The position is called checkmate.

      Whilst it's easy to call all those people watching terrorized weaklings, look at the situation. If you intervene and actually disrupt the screening agents, your minimally looking at a felony. If they really want to get you, they'll tack on a terrorist charge, and then you're really fucked. It really is too much to ask for a random citizen to intervene when the position is knowing your whole life as you know it, will likely be over after that moment. You can call them weak, but the situation has become that extreme for anyone to interfere.

      By that example, the Government has us all at checkmate. Yes it's absurd, and wrong, and unjust, but that's the hand we've accepted out of fear and nationalistic drumming during a time of mass post-traumatic stress. Our elected officials reacted, and we're now living with those results. Want it changed? Let your voice be heard, but not at the TSA checkpoint. Nothing, I repeat, NOTHING good can come out of doing it there.

    151. Re:Of course. by tycoex · · Score: 1

      "A human being would've known that. Robots... nothing here, just lights and clockwork. Go ahead, you trust 'em if you want to."

    152. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, who gave the pat down if not a human being? Was it a trained canine unit or something?

    153. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Understand your logic and reasoning. I also know that terrorist are not in the habit of repeating themselves too much. How many times had they hijacked planes and flew them into major towers prior to 9/11? Before the first woman had bombs strapped to her in the Middle East, how many times had that happened before? This isn't about odds or how many times it has happened before, its about what potentially could happen for the first time. That is what makes their job really hard.

      At the same time, if we have something like 9/11 and do nothing to prevent it again, then of course they will try it again. Same as internet security, once a hole is discovered, you plug it as well as you can and try to prevent other holes from appearing. You can't sit back and just wait for known holes to be exploited. That is not the bank or ecommerce site I want to visit or plane I want to fly on.

      I just returned from a trip to India. If you're ticked off about TSA, you should try flying in other parts of the world.

    154. Re:Of course. by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      How about we quit being total jackasses on the international stage, so then we don't fuel any significant amounts of 'terrorist' action. I'd rather treat things at the root.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    155. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The US has lost its fucking mind. The rest of the world goes on ok.
      This time France isn't going to send a fleet to liberate you from your own paranoia.
      Enjoy your brave new prison guys, remember the Fortress. -_-

    156. Re:Of course. by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      I think the fear is less about the plane crashing and more about where it crashes. People accept there's a certain amount of risk when they board a plane or even when you go to an airport which you might associate with some of the same risks, but you don't generally think about risks to your life when you go to your 9-to-5 office job. It's the realization that a hijacked plane can hit almost anywhere that the real terror starts.

    157. Re:Of course. by xystren · · Score: 1

      Look at how it has occurred in New York already. Remember the fiasco of the current administration wanting to get some photos of Air Force One in New York. Remember at the panic that resulted.

      Granted it was something that clearly was not though through by the administration, but look at the response - the psychological affect that has occurred. And this was how many years later? I'm sorry, the TSA isn't making people feel safer.

    158. Re:Of course. by xystren · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points for this comment, even if a AC

    159. Re:Of course. by Dorkmaster+Flek · · Score: 1

      Ack, replying to this because I selected the wrong mod option. But yes, this is exactly right.

      --
      I like to think of online DRM as something akin to a college -- you pay for lessons until you learn something.
    160. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's hard to cite....they're all dead and don't respond well to questioning as to their motives now.

    161. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't know about you, but I can't forget the numerous stories of terrorist strapping explosives to women and sending them out to be blown up.

      ... We need to strike a balance, not provide impenetrable security at any cost...

      Agreed. For example, unplug your computer from the internet -> internet security holes are all fixed. Let me know how that works out for you....

    162. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironically the people most in need of emmigration are the very same ones that have to bend over and let the TSA ass rape them to get a plane ticket.

      At least the world can rest assured that unlike most of our countrymen, wherever us TSA refuseniks end up, we won't be trying to export American values with us. :)

    163. Re:Of course. by anomaly256 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you all missed the point of 'duress' in my statement. You don't serve time for acting in duress.

    164. Re:Of course. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      I agree that the entity that is doing the inspection is tied to the federal government, but the point was that the airport/airlines are commercial entities, and you choose to use them, so the rules are not as black and white as people think they are. ( buses are also commercial.. )

      And i'm not *defending* the TSA, i am saying that people have a choice, and if they complain about what is going to happen when they know up front, they are morons.

      And i disagree, the 4th amendment does protect you walking down the street from random searches.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    165. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By "Muslims" do you mean "Islamic Extremists"? There is a pretty wide difference there.

      Citation needed.

    166. Re:Of course. by dmmiller2k · · Score: 1

      Do you really think that there aren't people who are comforted by this show of security theater?

      TSA = Theater of Securité Absurditus

      --

      "No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up." -- Lily Tomlin

    167. Re:Of course. by Windwraith · · Score: 1

      Actually I'd feel less horrified about a robot (an inert machine) patting down the kid. Kids find robots cool*, and robots can't get a boner from touching my girl. Not saying that TSA screeners are pedos, but I have no warrant of the opposite either.
      I'd be suspicious of someone so eager to touch a kid, for sure. Specially when there are alternatives.

    168. Re:Of course. by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      we've never had the full new procedure.

      Your points are all rendered moot. What you experienced was pre-insanity security screening.

      Come back and tell us what you think when a TSA guard has run the back of their hand across the most personal areas of your anatomy, or that of your young child.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    169. Re:Of course. by snowraver1 · · Score: 1

      ... and how does that work when you only have a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich?

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    170. Re:Of course. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Once someone, of any age, has passed the security checkpoint they should not be allowed back through it "the wrong way" to the non-secure area.

      The only thing I can see working the wrong way is your logic.

      The correct rule is that anyone (or anything) that leaves the clean zone is considered contaminated, and is sanitized again before being allowed back in.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    171. Re:Of course. by durrr · · Score: 1

      Do they still collect knives and pointy stuff in huge containers to be used as shrapnel for any terrorist walking by with a few pounds of semtex(as detailed in Transition(the Ian Banks book, good read there))

    172. Re:Of course. by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      enough westerners are so pissed off at islam that I do wonder how long it will be before some christian crashes a plane into a mosque or equiv

      Well, you are mad at the wrong target. I bet the intersection of the set of people smart enough to be mad at US airport terrorists (the TSA), and dumb enough to think the islamic people are the cause of that is very small. But I can't be sure, as I'm not from the US and don't live there, and...

    173. Re:Of course. by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      I would be a lot more worried about the local or airport cops that are usually within 20 feet of the checkpoint.

      I'd try to call him.

      But maybe that would be the wrong course of action to take at the US.

    174. Re:Of course. by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      You're defending the terrorists, so YOU must be a terrorist too!

      So, I suppose that organizing voters, asking people to sign petitions to have referendums etc. passed, running for office with disbanding the TSA as a major policy plank, and other normally-legal political activities to ultimately have the TSA disbanded through the voting process could be considered "material support of terrorism"?

      Because, after all, if the TSA is disbanded, it would (in the government's twisted logic) be a victory for the terrorists. Right?

      J. Random Fed - "You're attempting to circulate a petition to put a measure on the ballot and/or running for office to have the TSA disbanded? Assume the position...you're being charged with providing material support for terrorism. No, you don't get a lawyer or trial under the NDAA and Patriot Acts. No, you get no call. Ever again."

      Makes you wonder if, just maybe, Timothy McVeigh was simply ahead of his time.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    175. Re:Of course. by Asic+Eng · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, not exactly what you were asking for, but Hindawi packed the bomb into the carry-on bag of his pregnant Irish fiancee.

      So it's not really a stretch to think that someone would be depraved enough to hide a bomb on their little daughter and sacrifice their mother in law. Same for e.g. the neighbor's little daughter and her grandmother. Illustrates nicely why racial profiling doesn't work, either.

      Despite having a little daughter - if you have a TSA at all I can see why they might want to pat down a girl her age. However if they want to do that, it must be done in a humane way. Someone shouting at a little child in that situation needs to be fired and fined.

    176. Re:Of course. by Evanisincontrol · · Score: 2

      As you yourself implied, there's a world of difference between participating in a revolution (which may be warranted) and randomly killing TSA agents. The former is an attempt to rebuild the system from the roots up, with violence as an unfortunate-but-necessary catalyst. The latter is uncontrolled aggression that harms individuals and provides no benefit to society. I could theoretically support the former; I cannot justify the latter.

    177. Re:Of course. by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No one's saying small children should be excluded from screening

      Technically, you're right, because people like me are saying that nobody should be subjected to the TSA, that the TSA should be disbanded, and that the screening process is a ridiculous joke that fails to detect knives and guns. So yeah, I am not saying that four year olds should be excluded; I am saying that everyone should be excluded.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    178. Re:Of course. by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 2

      Given that the article described the little girl as having nightmares for the next several nights:

      Croft said that for the first few nights after coming home, Isabelle had nightmares and talked about kidnappers. She said TSA agents had shouted at the girl, telling her to calm down and saying the suspect wasn't cooperating.

      doesn't that make the TSA agents, by the dictionary definition of the word, terrorists? Dictionary.com has as the second definition for the word "a person who terrorizes or frightens others" and it sounds like this girl became extremely frightened or even terrified.

    179. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation please? According to Wikipedia, the only terrorist group to employ this tactic is Hamas,

      Many groups have put explosives on women.

      After all, a white Catholic pregnant Irishwoman clearly doesn't fit the terrorist profile. Unfortunately, her Arab fiancee put a bomb in her luggage:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_affair

      even though Israeli security does screen women -- which rather invalidates the theory.

      Israeli security suspects everyone (to different degrees). It's part of the reason they are successful at airline security, and stopped the Hindawi bombing.

    180. Re:Of course. by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      If there was a group of people dead-set on destroying the United States, that's where they should start.

      I doubt it. They'd be much more sucessfull if they started draining the money in the finantial markets...

    181. Re:Of course. by hoggoth · · Score: 2

      Rocky?

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

      Separating children from parents by strangers in an institutional setting should NEVER be allowed. I mean, Think Of The Children actually applies here.

    183. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? I don't think your X-box controller is gonna help you, gun-less tough guy. More likely *you* would be handcuffed (or tazed, or dead) before you hit the ground.

      Also, duress doesn't apply when you willfully bring your child to the molester.

    184. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or in the terminal itself:

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/24/us-russia-blast-airport-idUSTRE70N2TQ20110124

    185. Re:Of course. by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      There's no reason for adult security officers to be yelling at a four-year-old child.

      Never mind "no reason" - they need to be punished for that, it's child abuse.

      Further, they wanted to take the distressed child to another room, away from and out of sight of all of the adults who were with her, and search her there.

      Man, my daughter cries just because I leave for work. These guys must be total and and utter retards. Whoever came up with that procedure, and whoever is willing to follow it must be fired immediately. And it really shouldn't end there, there should be punishment for behavior like that.

    186. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This thread is so full of fucking yankey idiots that are shit scared of that halfbreed muslim and his cohorts it is amasing you aint all arse banging each other you really are PATHETIC the TSA need dealing with DO IT if it means some of them get smacked up in the process WTF sort the problem fortunately my daughters are all grown up no but the grand daughters are still young and anyone tries something like that i get to hear about it i may be disabled but i WILL put the fuckers in hospital simple as and it is about time you started sorting things out .

      HAve a single one of you ever stopped to think just WHY so many nations want to harm you ? i can bet you aint give it a thought you are a large Country but you have a very small Mentality you behave like everyone owes you everything where as it is the opposite way round you owe the rest of the world if it were not for the UK Spain France and a few others heading there in the first place not one of you would exist apart from the TRUE Americans that is the Red Indians .

       

    187. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Animals trained to smell bomb components are more than sufficient. The invasive, humiliating, and injust pat-down is not needed at all. It is being used because it is a good way to ensure that the people remember who their masters are.

    188. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      QFT. That was my thinking exactly and why I won't be flying until either things change or my 3-year-old turns 10.

    189. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great point. 7 billion passengers and what percentage of these encounters ends up being this bad? I travel A LOT and never have a problem. I've never seen anyone in the line ahead or behind me have a problem. Even if there were thousands of incidences that tick people off, that is only 1 in a million that are having problems. That's not as bad perhaps as everyone makes it out to be.

    190. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coward marching off to the ovens. Great example you'll set. maybe your kid WOULD be better off without your graduate course in grovelling and toe-licking.

    191. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should not make an exception for children.

      The exception should be unnecessary, because we shouldn't be treating anyone like that.

    192. Re:Of course. by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Of course you can do something: don't use a TSA-controlled airport.

    193. Re:Of course. by noh8rz3 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, if I were to trade off my rights being violated and another person's rights being violated, I choose the latter. Similarly, if I were to trade off many people's rights being violated, and a smaller subset of people's rights being violated, I choose the latter. Obviously the best answer is that nobody's rights are violated.

    194. Re:Of course. by lexsird · · Score: 4, Informative

      The British and Israelis have to be looking at us as if we are epic cowards. Both have endured terrorist bombings like we do thunderstorms. Yet, they didn't turn into whining sniveling dogs, cowering to authority, handing over civil liberties for a hint of safety.

      For anyone to blame this on Islam and want to blow up mosques, it would have to be some kind of backward moron that would never get enough traction to warrant any support. If they are that mentally lazy, I doubt they would have the motivation to take it any further than just mouthing some hot air.

      Now what does concern me is that if the American people feel that their system of democracy is a fallacy and lose faith in our electoral system. They will not participate in it and hence give the "bad guys" a free hand to take things even further down the toilet. This will eventually breed "domestic terrorism" and even more civil liberties will be revoked.

      Don't wax romantic about fighting a "revolution" either, "they" are far ahead of you on this and it will only end very badly for the little guys. Our one and only hope is to fight this straight up through the system. It's not easy, but it can be done. It has to be done. The alternative is too horrible to consider.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    195. Re:Of course. by AngryDeuce · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not saying that TSA screeners are pedos

      Believe me, if you'd proctored the TSA testing as I have, and seen the people that sit for these tests, you wouldn't be so quick to say that.

      Best and brightest, they are most definitely not.

    196. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A human being did search that child. Maybe your model of humanity is off.

    197. Re:Of course. by __aasdno7518 · · Score: 1

      After 9/11, we're all terrorists now.

      Actually the TSA are the terrorists.

    198. Re:Of course. by NeverSuchBefore · · Score: 1

      but the point was that the airport/airlines are commercial entities

      We're talking about the TSA, not airports.

      And i disagree, the 4th amendment does protect you walking down the street from random searches.

      Oh, but it doesn't protect you from being randomly searched by people employed by the government at airports? Where does it say that? That's incredibly dangerous thinking. It could allow the government to do whatever they please just because it happens at an airport (and they pretty much already do). The spirit of the constitution is being violated here.

    199. Re:Of course. by fnj · · Score: 1

      Makes you wonder how stupid these apocryphal "terrorists" could possible be, no? Could that possibly be a shadow of doubt I smell? I know my own doubts have gone well past the shadow stage.

      Actually we see real terrorists every day. The TSA. These OTHER terrorists they tell us are out there ... not so convincing any more.

    200. Re:Of course. by nitehawk214 · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you leave a hole, it will be exploited.

      Yeah, by the TSA.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    201. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you are a fool. Unless you are saying "4 year olds don't need to fly". Try looking up 'soft probe'. Here's a hint: If you consistently fail to check something (say, 4 year olds or the elderly), a competent bad-guy WILL exploit that hole.

      Checking the 4 year old is good security because it sends the message 'anyone will be checked at random'. Also it sends a good message to the flying public: You are cattle; you will obey.

    202. Re:Of course. by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      The TSA grunts are just doing their jobs, they aren't getting any kicks from patting down the kids.

      You haven't seen the TSA pedophile arrest reports then?

      cite

      Think about it: What kind of man signs up to grope other men's genitals all day long? Nobody normal, that's for sure. Most guys would run a mile from that.

      --
      No sig today...
    203. Re:Of course. by AngryDeuce · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oh, it doesn't need to be cash. They'll happily auction off your confiscated personal property as well.

      It's the same fucking bullshit with the DEA. Proceeds from property confiscations make up a huge chunk of their budget. The real question is, when are enough people going to start getting pissed off about this shit to do something about it? I'm sick and tired of the TSA apologists but it seems like there is a significant number of people in this country that really believe that they're being protected by these corrupt agencies...

    204. Re:Of course. by lexsird · · Score: 1

      We have congressional elections coming up as well. These are important and help one learn about grass roots if you get involved. Grass roots is where it all starts and where we the individuals have the most say. But amazingly these are the most neglected aspects of our political systems. It only helps the powers that be if we stay ignorant and out of this process.

      We have a process, what excuse do we have for not using it? If you aren't willing to use the process we already have, what do you want? If you feel it's broken, you can't help fix it while on your ass. It's a contact sport and you have to get off the bench and into the game, we are all players in it or suppose to be.

      If you don't like the choices, be a part of the process that helps make better ones. How people DON'T get involved is beyond me. If you seen who gets involved in these kinds of things, you might want to show up just to offset them. You wouldn't let these people pick LUNCH, yet you let them pick politicians?

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    205. Re:Of course. by jimbolauski · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, not exactly what you were asking for, but Hindawi packed the bomb into the carry-on bag of his pregnant Irish fiancee.

      So it's not really a stretch to think that someone would be depraved enough to hide a bomb on their little daughter and sacrifice their mother in law. Same for e.g. the neighbor's little daughter and her grandmother. Illustrates nicely why racial profiling doesn't work, either.

      Despite having a little daughter - if you have a TSA at all I can see why they might want to pat down a girl her age. However if they want to do that, it must be done in a humane way. Someone shouting at a little child in that situation needs to be fired and fined.

      There are two problems leading to situations like this, firstly the TSA screeners have little more then a high-school diploma and a weeks training, because of this, management, in true government from, treats them like idiots. They give them no room for interpretation or leeway on how to respond to any incident their choices are control the situation and get the person to submit to the screening or let them slide and loose their job. Do we need some form of screening absolutely YES, is using unqualified staff and a bureaucratic policies they way to achieve this, the results speak for themselves. If they truly cared about security they would have higher qualifications for the screeners, and trust them to make decisions on the ground instead of micromanaging from Washington. The problem is not that the screeners need new rules that children should be treated differently, it's that Napolitano shouldn't be making these decisions in Washington for screeners in Wichita.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    206. Re:Of course. by lymond01 · · Score: 1

      From your post: Further, they wanted to take the distressed child to another room, away from and out of sight of all of the adults who were with her, and search her there.

      From the article: She also said TSA agents wanted to screen her granddaughter alone in a separate room.

      I'm not fan of the TSA and how some of them can act during screening. There's a policy to never take a child out of a parent's sight. Other people in dramatic blogposts have tried to say much the same thing but have been refuted by security cameras. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying that the TSA would be breaking their own rules if they did such a thing.

      Lately a TSA agent allowed me to pass a 3+ oz jar of Hawaiian mustard through. He took it out of my bag, looked at it, thought about it, then shrugged at me and handed it back. Cuz it was mustard.

    207. Re:Of course. by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      Best AC post I can recall reading. Posting as I have more Karma than an AC, and hope to draw attention to his/her post.

      (don't waste mod points on me, mod the parent)

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    208. Re:Of course. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Don't be an idiot. All you would do is get shot and leave your child fatherless.

      There are far better avenues to take.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    209. Re:Of course. by Evanisincontrol · · Score: 2

      Duress would not be a valid legal defense here. Remember, duress only works as a defense when the defendant truly believed that they or someone else was being harmed or was under threat of harm. "My daughter was scared and unhappy about the screening procedure" does not equate to harm, and you would have a very hard time claiming that you thought a government employee was raping your daughter with hundreds of people watching nearby. I think the pat downs are insane and disrespectful and completely worthless, but no jury would accept that they are equivalent to rape or physical harm, nor would they accept it as an excuse for murdering a government employee.

      Duress would not get you off the hook. At best you might get a reduced sentence. And if the prosecution caught wind that you posted on an internet forum bragging about how you would kill a TSA agent if he touched your daughter, you would be going down for premeditated murder.

      Don't misunderstand what I'm saying here: the patdowns (and all of the TSA's theater bullshit) are wrong. They're morally wrong, they're politically wrong, and they're intellectually wrong. But under current law you would not get away with killing a TSA agent in the terminal, and, given how little the nation as a whole seems to care about the TSA's antics, don't expect that your sacrifice would raise any kind of revolution either (sadly enough).

    210. Re:Of course. by Swampash · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that it isn't so bad to visit the USA so long as you don't travel by air? Awesome.

    211. Re:Of course. by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      Including the government.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    212. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before we were married, both my wife and I were single parents. My wife was laid off and we were struggling with finding ways to cover her son on insurance (her CORBA premiums just for him where more than double her unemployment). We decided since the only reason we weren't married was to save up money for a wedding, we'd just go down to the court house, get married, and then I could cover them.

      At the court house, I went through security first, under the assumption I would always leave security if I had to attend to one of my kids, but if they passed through security and took off I'd be SOL. My son didn't quite understand the whole do things one at a time, so when I was flagged for wand (forgot about the digital camera) he stepped through and lines up for the wand. The sheriff's duputies just laughed, faked wanded him down, and said ignore the metal detector going off. Later they said my reaction is what they used to gauge how to re-act, I was compliant, I started to direct him to get back on the other side of the metal detector and to follow directions etc, so obviously I wanted him to comply and thus it was unlikely I was attempting to smugle anything in. They deputies had a laught, my son thought it was cool getting to talk to cops, and the building remains pretty secure; maybe not as secure as it could be but it will never be perfectly secure.

    213. Re:Of course. by __aasdno7518 · · Score: 1

      Cash they can seize (the booty funds "overhead," leaving more money from taxpayers to spend on boondoggle body scanner devices) is the name of the game. Some police agencies get vast swath of their funding from such seizure activities.

      We have an x cop as a next door neighbor and he basically said the same thing..He indicated the whole "war on drugs" was a huge money making racket and all sides are in on it.

    214. Re:Of course. by geekoid · · Score: 2

      So what? We have bomb detecting technology, and metal detectors. No need for a pat down. Fucking secure the door properly, have there automated system take control of the craft in an emergency and we are fucling done.

      Pat down are not needed.

      And you know what? If I had a choice between going there a security process from 15 years ago, or going through one now, I would take the airline that used the older process.

      And you scenarios is exceptionally rare.

      Lets put everyone against the while and cavity search them because hey, we need to plug those holes.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    215. Re:Of course. by Anemophilous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Then there is this brilliant new policy from the TSA:

      The statement noted that the agency recently implemented modified screening procedures for children age 12 and younger to further reduce the need for pat-downs of children, such as multiple passes through a metal detector and advanced imaging technology.

      I know the results are still not 100% conclusive, but *multiple* passes through the "advanced imaging technology" means more potential x-rays or backscatter radiation applied to our children. So that is how this security theatre works - radiate enough of the population at very young ages so that they develop medical problems sooner and either die or become incapable of physical action later in life.

    216. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also they'd shut down the entire airport.

      Do this at a couple major hubs and most of the country's air travel will be disrupted.

    217. Re:Of course. by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about rights. Random is a safe choice algorithm, profiling is not.

    218. Re:Of course. by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do you have a link to either of those groups turning kids into suicide bombers?
      Specifically suicide bomber outside of the immediate threat of their nation?

      no? didn't think so.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    219. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Yelling at a child is child abuse? What you are suggesting is worse than the TSA.

    220. Re:Of course. by b0bby · · Score: 1

      I disagree. It's more like going to the doctor - you know you're going to have to get undressed & be touched, but it's not an assault. Sure there may be random pedophiles in the doctors office (there was a case in Delaware recently), but I stay with my kids at the doctor & I stay with my kids at the airport.
      It's all about the context.

    221. Re:Of course. by lightknight · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hmm. Heavy duffle-bag filled with pellets and explosives...at least 40 people in a line...yeah, that could do it.
      Perhaps one of those bags with wheels? I've heard explosives are a tad heavy.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    222. Re:Of course. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      find a candidate that will represent your views on this and work towards getting this person elected. It's a win/win situation to get involved. If your candidate wins, your efforts are paid off, you have helped make America a better place.

      Not a lot of experience with the American political system, I take it? Here's the problem with your premise: all the candidates are crooks and liars, who support the removal of freedoms by the federal government; at least, the candidates who actually stand a chance of winning are.

      So long as monied interests control politics, we the People will have no say. Considering that the bought-and-paid-for political elite have no intention of changing the rules they created in order to make themselves kings, I posit that the ballot box has become an abject failure in the defense of liberty, and thus a complete waste of time.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    223. Re:Of course. by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      Don't know about you, but I can't forget the numerous stories of terrorist strapping explosives to women and sending them out to be blown up.

      There have been women suicide bombers, but you're implying that these women had no agency in the bombing. Please cite an incident that shows otherwise.

      But the obvious solution in this case is to have the child go through the scanners again. Why the pat down? Either the scanners are good enough to detect anything that could have been passed from an unscreened passenger to a screened passenger, or they're not. Unless they are implicitly acknowledging that latter...

      This is why the procedure says that is a person goes though security and is cleared then comes in contact with another person, that is a suspicious activity and they must be patted down, the preferential place for the pat downs is in a secluded room, out of site of cell phone cameras, to give them "privacy" when they are groped by a stranger. The screeners are treated like mindless robots and are told to follow the procedures to a T and to never think on their own. They hire unqualified staff and make up for it by trying to take away the thinking, this is bureaucracy at it's finest.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    224. Re:Of course. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Can't help but point out it was stopped without a pat down.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    225. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't like men with too many muscles.

    226. Re:Of course. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Here's the thing: No one's saying small children should be excluded from screening"
      If by screening you mean being physically touched in any way, then I am saying they should not be screened in that manner. None of us should.

      Just to let you know.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    227. Re:Of course. by noh8rz3 · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about rights. Random is a safe choice algorithm, profiling is not.

      i dont know what this means

    228. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your internet security comparison is spot on, however like most internet security people, you fail to understand that sometimes holes are OK.

      You're referring to a cost-benefit analysis, a simple comparison of the cost of plugging the hole and the expected cost of leaving the hole unplugged. I take exception to your statement of "like most internet security people." True security people, internet and otherwise, already know this. The problem is that there are too many people who either call themselves security people of are thought of as security people who aren't. Please don't lump this person, or the farce that is our security theater, in with true professionals.

    229. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a man in America, good luck putting your hands on someone else's kid and not catching a kiddie raper beef.

      Pull a 4 year old out of traffic while her mom is busy ordering Starbucks? YOU MONSTER!! DON'T YOU TOUCH MY CHILD YOU PEDO BASTARD!!!!

    230. Re:Of course. by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      This about who rules, people. Control. Pure and simple.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    231. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of idiot sends their children through first while both parents stay behind? It only seems like common sense to me....one parent goes through, the kids go through, the other parent goes through. Obviously when it's only 1 parent you've got to do it one way or the other, so you can't help that, but with 2 parents there, there's no excuse for that kind of stupidity

    232. Re:Of course. by Mobius+Ring · · Score: 1

      too bad people can remember their popular cultural references, i.e.: V for Vendetta - Governments should be afraid of their citizens... not the other way around.

      The problem of the 'heroic resistance of individuals' is that as stated above this only works in Hollywood. The fact of the matter is that due to individual fear a dozen people can be held off by a lone 'bad guy' with a revolver that has 6 shots. When societal issues arise that affect everyone society loses because the individuals that comprise it wont act out of fear for their individual lives.

      Mind you, when 'society' (aka: governments usually, but sometimes the actual society) decides that some must die in a war... well, you can fix a problem with a solution that in other instance (like war) are an atrocity (i.e.: drafts).

      I offer not solutions, just and observation.

      --
      When those around you are loosing their heads while you are keeping yours, maybe you've misunderstood the situatiuation.
    233. Re:Of course. by Magnus+Pym · · Score: 1

      Citation please? According to Wikipedia, the only terrorist group to employ this tactic is Hamas, even though Israeli security does screen women -- which rather invalidates the theory.

      Not correct. The Tamil Tigers and various other groups have used women suicide bombers. Rajiv Gandhi, the ex-Prime Minister of India was killed by female suicide bomber.

    234. Re:Of course. by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      Just take the train, eh? Sorry, TSA is there, too.

      I know, let's take a boat! Oops, TSA is there, too.

      Fuck it, let's just drive to our destination. Fuck! TSA is there, too!

      Okay, fuck traveling, let's just go to a football game. Whaddaya know, TSA is there, too!

      You cannot escape the TSA. Believe me, within a generation, you're going to need to submit to a TSA search every time you leave your fucking house. They already watch all your electronic communication so even being inside your home is not enough to escape the eye of TSAuron.

      Whether he went on with the diary, or whether he did not go on with it, made no difference. The Thought Police would get him just the same. He had committed— would still have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper— the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you.

      - George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

    235. Re:Of course. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I disagree. The TSA provides a valuable service..it's just that they have gone too far.

      I have no problem with post 9/11 security measures at the airport, and the new cockpit security. Hell, put a marshal on every plane. not one is plain cloths, but a Mean looking person with a wide brim hat, sunglasses and a shotgun with bean bag round.

      Problem solved.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    236. Re:Of course. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      It's nice to see the "brown people are terrorists" propaganda has properly programmed you to jump to Middle-Eastern people when you think terrorist.

      Funny, when I hear the term I envision white guys in three-piece suits...


      Natch.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    237. Re:Of course. by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      She was doing what all responsible people teach their children to do. Scream and run away if a stranger tries to touch you or take you away.

      The child CORRECTLY determined that the TSA people seemed to be creepy and harmful.

    238. Re:Of course. by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Any choke point is an opportunity. And TSA has created the mother of all choke points.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    239. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you're fine with that, too, aren't you? You fucking coward. I'd rather spend the rest of my life in prison or get killed then live in a world with you weak, powerless, sniveling little fucks who would stand idly by while armed goons molest a little girl. Fuck you.

    240. Re:Of course. by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      This in't just about privacy. The TSA is there to treat people like cattle entering steerage. It seems to do this, at least, with ruthless efficiency.

      Citizens! Give up your humanity for the sake of your security!

      All together now .... "Moooo!"

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    241. Re:Of course. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      gee, that's just like putting it on a 4 year old.. not.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    242. Re:Of course. by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Which of these two headlines do you think would get more media attention?:

      A) Man files complaint after TSA pats down his 4-year-old daughter

      B) Man assaults 3 TSA agents after attempted pat-down of his 4-year-old daughter

    243. Re:Of course. by bistromath007 · · Score: 1

      >implying that "narcotics" are bad to put on a plane

      Thanks for invalidating your argument by comfirming your bias!

    244. Re:Of course. by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      That's the problem. When was the last time you saw ONE TSA rent-a-cop at a security check point.

      Your actions while noble will likely be short lived and you will get to make a new personal friend with a glove on in the back room. It's the standard toughguy scenario we all suffer from. Yes I would defend my daughter. No I would not go apeshit at a group of armed people just because they patted her down while she was having a tantrum.

      Remember, you're no good to her dead or in prison.

      The TSA do not have the power or authority to detain anyone they are not officers, they are not qualified to carry weapons, or make arrests, typically there is an officer there and you would get tased and put in the back of a squad car and driven to jail, but not before you got more then a few good shots in . If you told the screener to stop threatening your daughter and to not touch her after they make their intentions clear that they intend on molesting your daughter and they still continued. A group of peers could reasonably assume that you were protecting your daughter, that's all you need.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    245. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you wouldn't, don't fucking lie, either to yourself or to us. We all know that would never happen. You'd sit there, maybe make some vocal complaints, try to calm your daughter down as best you could, and maybe write a letter later.

      Why?

      1. You paid for tickets, you have a destination to go to. Unless you're rich, throwing those away would be be a pretty hard pill to swallow.
      2. You would honestly go to prison for murder, to have your daughter grow up with her early memories of you being from behind a glass window through a phone, or supervised by guards? And also throw away your job, and any future income since you'd be lucky to work in fast food after that? No you wouldn't, no sane person would.

      You're either one of two people. Either you're like the rest of us, getting by, or your a sociopath with no qualms about murder... which you're clearly not, since you haven't assassinated the head of the TSA or anything. And your 'duress' argument wouldn't hold water. The TSA's lawyers versus your own... no contest. And the TSA would be looking for any evidence against you. You didn't post anonymously, so IF this were to ever occur, you've now got a premeditated murder charge, so good luck ever getting out of prison before your daughter is over 18 and moves out of the house.

    246. Re:Of course. by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      And after you were thrown in jail (assuming you weren't killed by police officers during your violent rampage), who would protect your 4 year old daughter then? Do you truly think her childhood would be better with you dead or in jail?

      And that's exactly why shit like this continues year after year despite overwhelming public disapproval.

      To quote a film: "Wars are not fought only by childless men." There are some things that are worth taking a stand for, even with such grave consequences. Maybe you think this is one of those things, maybe not, but eventually it's going to come down to that. Our forefathers risked their lives and the lives of their families fighting a war of independence to prevent injustices like these because, to them, the injustices themselves were worse than death. I have no doubt that we're going to be facing those kinds of decisions in earnest within a generation. This shit cannot continue.

    247. Re:Of course. by JWW · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bingo!!

      Back when there was the whole mess with Hurricane Katrina, everyone wanted the higher ups in government to have more responsibility and accountability when disasters happened.

      But the REAL answer is that the folks on the front lines during a disaster need to be given the authority to do what needs to be done.

      More stringent guidelines and procedures does not work.

    248. Re:Of course. by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      No shit. I can promise you right now if anyone ever did that to my daughter they wouldn't be breathing for long after

      Really, you would kill yourself if you ever detected that you had put your daughter into a situation where she would be subject to the inhuman TSA machine?

      That's perversely admirable but I think you're being too hard-assed on yourself. In some moment of mental weakness (we all have them) you may decide that flying her somewhere is the most convenient thing to do, despite the fact that your choice predictably will cause your daughter to be exposed to TSA and therefore at risk of inhuman treatment by a completely unaccountable government bureaucracy. Should that happen, please give yourself a second chance, even if an objective analysis reveals that it was, in fact, due to your fully-informed risk-taking. You were really only doing the best you could in a shitty situation. It's not like a bus ride or a car ride was totally guaranteed to be safe from government goons either.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    249. Re:Of course. by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Then repeat themselves all the time. Don't thing the person flying the plane is the only terrorist. The people running the organization do repeat themselves.

      "if we have something like 9/11 and do nothing to prevent it again, then of course they will try it again."
      see, that pisses me off. You, and many others, use the example as an excuse for BAD SECURITY.

      Airplane control of any type is solvable.
      Good flight deck doors, automated systems problem solved.
      We should not be discussing if searching a 4 year old is too much, because it is. We should be discussing whether or not the cost of a Marshall on every plane is worth it.

      Stop physically touching people. Use a metal detector and a bomb dog. If you can get it past those two things, your getting it past a TSA agent.

      The currently policy of the TSA is more harmful to this nation then any terrorist.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    250. Re:Of course. by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 0

      Citation please? According to Wikipedia, the only terrorist group to employ this tactic is Hamas, even though Israeli security does screen women -- which rather invalidates the theory.

      You're fucking kidding right? Or a fucking kid?

      Ever hear of Vietnam you idiot?

      -AI

      --
      For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
    251. Re:Of course. by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      I'm with you.

      But I'll add that if anyone truly doesn't feel safe on a flight unless everyone, including four year olds, has been through the current security screening process, then I support the right of people to set up an airline/airport where that is the rule, and everyone can pick if they want to fly that way or with less security. Then people can pick the level of security they are comfortable with.

    252. Re:Of course. by Jessified · · Score: 1

      But why pay money for training and better employee screening when you could be spending that money on shiny new toys?????

    253. Re:Of course. by geekoid · · Score: 2

      good news is, we are becoming better received on the international stage. Funny how once you stopped calling people Evil in the same context as invading countries you get better received on the international stage.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    254. Re:Of course. by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Either you are full of shit (most likely scenario) or you are psychotic. Even if you are psychotic, I doubt you have the necessary techniques to kill a person before they hit the ground without weapons.

    255. Re:Of course. by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure...
      I have children and I will not fly with them because of the TSA.
      The odds of being killed in an airplane are lower than for driving, however with the TSA's antics the odds of being _harmed_ are near 100%.
      I choose to not put my 8 year old daughter in a position where she will be harmed with near certainty. Until I can afford to charter private flights I will not be flying with my family.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    256. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm in Europe and can't believe what you people put up with

      Hell, I'm in fucking *China* and I can't believe what US citizen put up with...

    257. Re:Of course. by Dishevel · · Score: 0

      Fuck the TSA.
      Someone feels up my daughter and I will be ok with the prison time that comes for beating a TSA thug to death.
      At some point people you have to stand up for freedom or you will lose it completely.
      Once lost freedom does not come back easily or quickly. You will not live to see it come back.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    258. Re:Of course. by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      something some folks are missing is that it seems that the girl in question was not wearing an outfit that would hide anything bigger than say a MATCHBOOK.

      given the current style (which could be described as "ballet" stuff) where could you hide anything dangerous??

      (oh and its common for a girl to be wearing a Tule skirt (aka tinkerbell style) so no you couldn't hide the gun in her skirt)

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    259. Re:Of course. by Jessified · · Score: 1

      So much win.

    260. Re:Of course. by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Well if you get your way we know what the next terrorist attack will be.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    261. Re:Of course. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I have children. Also, I am civilized person, and I have enough intelligence to know I can not fight the hole airport.

      I care enough about my children to actually think about repercussions of my action. I suggest you start caring enough to think.

      In your scenario you either end up in prison or dead. Even if you actually manage to kill the TSA person. So, now what about your child?

      Rest assure I am outraged by these actions. I would take action, but it would be smart action.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    262. Re:Of course. by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 1

      The family's suggestion was that since the attempts to pat down the child were distressing her, the agents have the child go through the metal detector again, or use a wand to check her for metal objects.

      To catch all the metallic plastic explosives she had on her?

      Wait, that's not right... plastic explosives AREN'T metallic.

      -AI

      --
      For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
    263. Re:Of course. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      That experiment was heavily flawed.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    264. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's fucking depressing that if it's a crippled person, a religious figure, or a child, we're all "OH NO YOU FUCKING DIDN'T".

      The travesty is the fucking violation itself. And that it happens to all people every day, even if they're middle aged white guys or elderly black dudes or young asian guys. This bullshit like there's supposed to be a different standard for "more precious" people in our society is fucking bullshit.

    265. Re:Of course. by Evanisincontrol · · Score: 1

      Make no mistake, I do not approve of the TSA's policies. I didn't approve of any of our recent wars either, but I did not start killing government employees in order to emphasize that point. A single man committing violent acts is not a patriot; he is a violent psychopath. Maybe a violent revolution is necessary. I am not convinced that it is, but IF it is, then I will fight. But I don't think that revolution is going to start in an airport terminal.

    266. Re:Of course. by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      The point here is the TSA is nothing but one big hole.
      They have never prevented anything. Not once.
      Security came during 9/11.
      United flight 93. They became different people in the new world.
      Never again will a bunch of intolerant, backwards, religious thugs take over an aircraft without a major fight.
      The problem the TSA was created to fix did not exist by the time the TSA was created.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    267. Re:Of course. by Asmodae · · Score: 1

      It was clear, functional, simple and elegant before the feature creep took place.

      What, like civil rights? Women's suffrage? Which features do you consider 'creep' here?

    268. Re:Of course. by AngryDeuce · · Score: 5, Informative

      I submit to the record, exhibit A:

      TSA screeners at LAX arrested on narcotics trafficking charges

      CNN front page right now...it'd almost be funny if it wasn't so fucking sad and infuriating.

    269. Re:Of course. by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 1

      Really? Funny, but I can't remember a single example of a 4-year-old obviously American child traveling in the US with her grandmother who has ever blown anything up.

      Funny but I can't remember a single example of someone taking over an aircraft with box cutters.

      [I'm speaking from August 2001]

      Funny but I can't remember a single example of someone trying to take over an aircraft with a shoe bomb.

      Funny but I can't remember a single example of someone trying to take over an aircraft with their underwear full of explosives.

      Shall I continue?

      -AI

      --
      For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
    270. Re:Of course. by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      If I had points, I'd mod you up...agreed

    271. Re:Of course. by daem0n1x · · Score: 1
    272. Re:Of course. by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Remember, you're no good to her dead or in prison.

      But you and others like you standing up against clearly wrong, fascist, freedom robbing actions of the government might just help everyone.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    273. Re:Of course. by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

      Where did you get that idea?

      Ummm... history maybe? Just sayin..
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children

      Kids have been used in warfare. If you believe in the whole TSA logic, then it makes perfect sense to search a child. It's the perfect place to stash something. Especially if nobody is going to search a child.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    274. Re:Of course. by guanxi · · Score: 1

      The USA has started on a downward spiral into a totalitarian regime with no regard whatsoever for human rights or life. I am not sure whether they are past the point of no return

      This was modded "Insightful"?

    275. Re:Of course. by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you are so scared of radiation, DON'T FLY!

      On a 3 hour flight, you will receive the equivalent of 60 TSA scans from atmospheric radiation due to altitude.
      On a 18 hour international flight, the equivalent of 360 scans.

      Stay home or take the bus (or a boat).

      Those of us who will still fly will appreciate the extra room on the planes and the lower fares.

      If all the cancer paranoia were true, we'd all have cancer by age 10!

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    276. Re:Of course. by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>This is really no different than internet security. If you leave a hole, it will be exploited.

      The difference is I have a very high risk of internet malware attacking my computer (probably close to 1 probability). The odds of a terrorist blowing-up a plane, and I happen to be on that plane, is 1 in a billion. That's lower odds than dying in a car accident driving to work.

      I'd sooner take the 1 in a billion risk of death by terrorist than the ~1 in 100 odds of being nudebody X-ray scanned, or felt-up by a TSA stranger. I'd rather choose my right-to-travel and not be sexually assaulted in the process.

      Oh and before you say something dumb like "Drive or take a train instead," the TSA is now expanding to highways and depots too. Also random searches as post offices and stadiums and big-box stores. There is now no place the TSA (using the name VIPR Teams) can not suddenly appear and accost you.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    277. Re:Of course. by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      "Best and brightest, they are most definitely not." More like bullies looking for someone to empower them to act like bullies...

    278. Re:Of course. by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Common sense of trained, experienced professionals such as the security for Israeli airports.

      They are much more professional and much less intrusive than TSA and much more effective.

      TSA has two strikes...it is staffed by amateurs and because of that, has rigid procedures.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    279. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem is that so many TSA agents are the sort of people who would respond to any challenge to their authority -- whether it comes from an arrogant alpha male, an hysterical 4-year-old or an exhausted and confused old man. To such people, all challenges have to be overwhelmed and crushed.

    280. Re:Of course. by Technician · · Score: 1

      On a serious note, has there been any data collected on the number of people either not flying, or avoiding flying anytime possible because of the TSA? This will need to be ballanced for fairness against all the new travelers that now think it is safe to fly now.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    281. Re:Of course. by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      How about you just give me all your money so I don't have to mug you for it?

    282. Re:Of course. by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      btw, who are you shilling for? Checkmate? All people have to do is stop obeying and there's nothing the government can do. There's too many of us.
      That's why we ALL need to do it. If we're all labelled terrorists I can't wait to see how the judicial system handles.

      Andrew Jackson famously said, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" which applies just fine here. We don't have to obey unless we think we do.
       

      --
      -
    283. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a time in my life when I simply didn't even understand that concept.

      Later in my life, I understood it in abstract, but could not relate to it due to lack of personal experience and I thought actors on were just going overboard / people in the news were talking it up to justify their over-reaction.

      At this point in my life I have experience to relate to. Without a doubt, I had no clue until that point what it meant to, "SEE RED" or the "RED FOG".

      My dog was attacked on two occassioans where the other dog grabbed him by the neck, started to shake, and my dog began to yelp the yelp that sounds like he is about to die. I love my dog, he is my best friend, and can be credited in some way for my not having done something drastic during my divorce. To this day both experiences are a haze. I am told that I launched myself across the hiking trail into the brush, tackled them, and begain wailing on the attacking dog to get him to release. Not smart I know, but that is my point. I lost all sense and acted on pure rage and adrenaline. My dog came out shaken but unharmed ... my injuries mostly resulted from the leap to reach them.

      Nothing else in my life, not my first skydive, not a few near-death moments on a motorcycle, not even my first "piece" caused this level of adrenaline overload. The only other thing that came close was when I felt that my wife was about to be in danger and I felt the tingle of it starting before I realized all was ok. Even just start of it left me trembling for a good 15 minutes.

      So take that, and make it my child (I have none) ... in many ways I'm actually fearful what my reaction might be. I don't know what I would do, and I doubt I could stop myself. But one of us would be going to the hospital or the grave and that is not bravado talking, that is cold hard reality.

      And just in case anyone wants to brand me a hot head with poor impulse control ... beyond being a loud boisterous person from the North East US, I'm a decidely non-agressive dude way more likely to walk away from beligerant a-holes or defuse an altercation than I am to just go off. But when someone I love is being truly physically threatened (vs just being antagonized) I have learned that my reaction is the opposite of freezing like a deer in headlights.

    284. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After all, a white Catholic pregnant Irishwoman clearly doesn't fit the terrorist profile.

      Of course, you Americans (conveniently) forget a small terrorist organisation called the IRA that many of your countrymen so proudly supported for years. A white Catholic Irishwoman, pregnant or not, most certainly fits *a* terrorist profile from not that many years ago on this side of the pond.

    285. Re:Of course. by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      I really hope you are not an American citizen.
      We really do not need more self absorbed shitheads that stand by and watch as their freedoms are torn from them and their neighbors.
      I thank God that the real men and women that faced these decisions early in this countries history thought differently than you did.
      I pray that when faced with this decision myself that I have the strength of my convictions to do the right thing regardless of personal cost.
      I have faced these decisions in smaller things. I have chosen correctly. It only cost me money and inconvenience. When it costs me my freedom in order to move forward the cause of freedom I can only hope that I do the right thing. No man can know for sure till that moment comes.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    286. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not going to happen. Bullies pick on the powerless. The children of strong, confident, physically alert parents will not be molested, because the TSA screener - by definition a weak, pitiful, worthless coward - won't even think of it. Lots of members of the American public can break a TSA screener's neck with one kick, and make certain of the result with one jumping two-heel stomp to the thorax, before anyone else present has time to react. But people who can do this do not display the body language of a "victim" and therefore, will not be given a reason to do it.

    287. Re:Of course. by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      I didn't see it as molestation; we've never had the full new procedure

      You do not see what as molestation?
      The stuff they do not do anymore or the thing that you have never had?

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    288. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why can't americans understand that terrorists aren't attacking their country because they envy their (supposed) freedom or because the us security is crap, they do it because the us do the same with others country and always act like huge egocentric fag.

      americans really thing others country were outraged by 9-11, when in fact most of them knew they deserved it.

    289. Re:Of course. by noh8rz3 · · Score: 1

      tl;dr. i dont click on links. please provide a concise summary for me.

    290. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A screaming child tearing around, and given you specifically say "terrible two's", I assume that there is a fair amount of high pitched screaming and attacking anyone not their parents nearby. At least that's the image you conjur. To go with this, we have a number of guards trying to handle a woman going absolutely batshit psycho on them.

      Yes, I want to be associated with them, and have the goons take out their frustration and anger on me, the lower hanging fruit than the woman who's obviously fighting back.

      The husband did the right thing. You make him sound cowardly, but to me he sounds smart. It's clearly, blatantly obvious that a 'brute force' method will not get you past security. Absolutely no amount of complaining or yelling will accomplish this. He calmly found the source of the problem, removed the metal whatever, and proceeded to attempt to find his daughter.

      Yes the TSA was stupid just releasing her into the crowd instead of maybe holding onto her arm until the husband came through. If she attacked them, they could have called the husband over to grab said child and return back behind security to sort through the problem while holding the child, who clearly could get through the metal detector anyway. That doesn't change the fact that calling everyone else cowardly for NOT associating themselves with obvious troublemakers (ie: screaming, swearing wife) in the direct presence of people who can immediately and irrevocably make them lose the money they paid for tickets, and be unable to travel to their planned, paid for destination.

      I'm not saying it's right, but it's stupid to expect all strangers to throw themselves under a bus for you. Yes, someone grabbing the child to keep them from running away would have been very good, but keep in mind you're in the USA... land of the "you attempted to help me after I was mugged, so now I'm suing you because you made my injuries worse". And maybe nobody that happened to be around was particularly good with calming down children AND wasn't concerned about being sued, or arrested for abduction.

      We've got our own shit to worry about than adding to it sitting in prison because some clearly unstable, psychotic parent (in our eyes, given the situation) sees me grabbing their child. The population started that particular course of action, so that part can't be blamed on the TSA. You can blame a lot on them, but not people avoiding grabbing someone's child.

      That's not cowardice... that's just common sense nowadays.

    291. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thank heavens you're not in charge, eh?

    292. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps, but the rage associated with your child being physically theatened means the other guy will be on the floor so fast he won't know what hit him either. He's not talking about being a tough guy in a bar, he is talking about a primal reaction to a theat posed to his child. There is no predicting it and there is no comparing it. It does not take long to jump on someone and start wailing on them. If they aren't expecting it (read: not squared up in front of you ready to attack themselves) you could easily do some damage before anyone else awakes from their stupor, makes their way towards you, and peels you off. Of yeah and don't forget they don't have the pure adreneline rage you do either.

    293. Re:Of course. by Jessified · · Score: 1

      I live in Canada and part of me wants to emigrate just because I live so close to America.

      Afterall, I can't exactly fly anywhere without having to put up with the TSA.

    294. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed about working within the system, but I'm not so sure "they" are far ahead.

      Goat herders in central Asia beat one super power in the 80's and history looks to be repeating itself again. Now do you think that same super power will prevail over a revolting American public any better?

      I think patriotism works against the US government when the enemy is Americans. For that reason the US military will fragment and their usefulness to the US government will be unreliable at best. The likes of TSA drones and other loyal government agents are vastly outnumbered.

      Americans may be coerced by the threat of force when -- as someone else put it -- in novel situations like a TSW checkpoint, but enough enraged Americans can cause change in policy or if the proverbial SHTF erase Washington if necessary.

      Forbid it ever comes to this point: Revolution might be very bloody but the outcome would be inevitable. The US would cease to exist and Americans would prevail.

    295. Re:Of course. by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      You really think that the TSA protects you?
      You do realize that every time a terrorist has attempted to board a plane with some type of weapon they have succeeded.
      It has only been device failures and aware passengers that have given us security. Not the TSA.
      The TSA is there to make the stupid feel safe and get us used to massive governmental authority.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    296. Re:Of course. by ClioCJS · · Score: 1
      It's nice to know you're so willing to protect your daughter as to go to jail, and not have a job to help pay for her college and medical care. She's lucky to have a murderer for a father.

      Oh wait, you were just pretending to be a badass. Like all those people who moved to Canada when Bush was elected, and all those people who deleted their facebook after moving to google+.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    297. Re:Of course. by kraut · · Score: 1

      I've been to plenty of other countries, and the US border / security process was the worst one I ever encountered, bar East Germany.

      --
      no taxation without representation!
    298. Re:Of course. by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Typically?
      I would wager that I have never heard of a White, Suburban, 4 year old girl used as a walking bomb. Never.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    299. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The British and Israelis have to be looking at us as if we are epic cowards. Both have endured terrorist bombings like we do thunderstorms. Yet, they didn't turn into whining sniveling dogs, cowering to authority, handing over civil liberties for a hint of safety.

      Not back in the IRA years we didn't, no, but we certainly seem to be trying to play catchup with the US nowadays.

    300. Re:Of course. by gorzek · · Score: 2

      Cool story, Internet tough guy.

    301. Re:Of course. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      boats?

      'Hello. This is the US Coast Guard, may we board you?'

      Best to say yes. And, surprisingly enough, the US Coast Guard is now part of the Department of Homeland Security. (Not their fault.)

      The CG can board any boat in US waters. Any time. For any reason.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    302. Re:Of course. by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      >I don't know about Mexico, but my experience driving into Canada for a weekend trip was worse than anything I've been through at the airport.

      This is most likely retaliation for the way that Canadians are treated coming into the US.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    303. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, but then a 300mm plane doesn't get blown up.

    304. Re:Of course. by Grog6 · · Score: 2

      I didn't make him for You!

      --
      Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    305. Re:Of course. by Almandine · · Score: 1

      Stop physically touching people. Use a metal detector and a bomb dog. If you can get it past those two things, your getting it past a TSA agent.

      So now sharp hard plastic/ceramic objects can easily pass through.

    306. Re:Of course. by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      I've traveled to Canada several hundred times over the years, and never once experienced anything like what you did. I have had my vehicle searched a couple times, but that was done in a matter of a couple minutes. Probably the worst case was actually returning to the U.S. when I was only a teenager (1960s), and my mother forgot to declare my .22 long rifle that was in the trunk, which was properly documented. They U.S. customs actually removed the door covers, searching for other things that we forgot to mention...think it was mostly punishment, or an exercise for them because we were obviously not a threat to anyone.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    307. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this is true of any place where lots of people gather. The point is to take down a whole plane, which gets publicity for their 'cause' and helps recruit yet more terrorists.

    308. Re:Of course. by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      americans really thing others country were outraged by 9-11, when in fact most of them knew they deserved it.
      No country deserves to have something like 9/11 happen. Hopefully you are just a troll.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    309. Re:Of course. by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      He asked for examples for bombs being planted on women without their knowledge.

    310. Re:Of course. by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 2

      what I'm curious about is how long a reverse-terrorist attack will take to happen (enough westerners are so pissed off at islam that I do wonder how long it will be before some christian crashes a plane into a mosque or equiv).

      I think an interesting example of this is the Anders Brevick affair: a middle class, white Christian male murders 77 mostly teenage victims to protest the increased acceptance of Islam in his country. A small proportion of the population anywhere that (i) feels irrationally strongly about some issue; and (ii) is powerless to fight it in any other way will convince themselves that it is helpful to protest the perceived (often real) wrong by attacking innocent third parties. Demonizing groups that are already extremely angry will make them even more unhappy and possibly turn 0.001% of them into terrorists.

    311. Re:Of course. by ZackZero · · Score: 1

      Civilians deserved to die because of this? Nice of you to post as an AC, but civilians never deserve to die in any situation - their deaths are sometimes unavoidable, but are never the desired outcome of any fighting body other than an extremist group.

    312. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical non-thinking attitude. A pat-down does not mean the TSA suspects your daughter. Terrorists have been known to plant bombs...what better target than an unsuspecting child? It is neither an attack nor molestation.

    313. Re:Of course. by bistromath007 · · Score: 1

      "If you believe the whole TSA logic..."

      So then... if you're criminally insane?

    314. Re:Of course. by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      "take the distressed child to another room, away from and out of sight of all of the adults who were with her, and search her there." - do you read what you respond to?

    315. Re:Of course. by snobody · · Score: 1

      They are trying to provoke the people to fight back. Look at the totality of what has happened since 9/11 and you see the dramatic escalation of the machinery of a police state that is just waiting for the right incident to throw the machine in to full action.
      Then google Rex 84 and you will see that this is a process that has been in place for most of our adult lives. There are people installed at the intelligence and military communities who don't like our form of government and would like to change it to a dictatorship.
      Keeping that in mind, when we hear about people like Mr. Abdulmutallab, who tried to bomb an airliner heading to Detroit in 2009 and whose failed bomb plot was the instigator of the installation of these dangerous x-ray scanners, and how passenger Kurt Haskell, a Detroit attorney, testified that Mr. Abdulmutallab was escorted on the plane by well-dressed government types who flashed badges at airline and customs officials in order to get him past security.
      So, yes, the TSA is trying to provoke us. The terrorists with pepper spray that unleashed on UC Davis student protesters are trying to provoke us. The TSA VIPR program is trying to provoke us. They want this fight.

    316. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody derserve to be punched, but if a moron insult people randomly and then get punched sorry but he can't blame anyone else than himself.

      Also, I'm not saying people deserved to die, but the country started crap with others country, and got punched, no one is to blame but themselve.

    317. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, we've been terrorists since March 9, 1933 when the Emergency Banking Act modified the definition of Enemy in the Trading With The Enemies Act to include all Americans.

    318. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) If you create an exemption to searches, those exemptions are EXACTLY where bad people would hide the bombs. That's security 101. So it does make sense to apply all the rules equally to all persons, including wheelchairs and kids and grandmas.

      2) That doesn't excuse said agents' behaviour and response to the girl's tantrum. TSA Agents need to be respectful and intelligent enough to know how to handle different people and diffeernt situations. Yelling at a 4yo girl who is already upset will not make the situation better. Tact and gentleness, someone who is good with children, etc, are called for. Not yelling and berating.

    319. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just bomb a DMV. Hell, 2 hours into queuing at the DMV and I'm hoping for a bomb to go off just to end my misery.

    320. Re:Of course. by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      It's a huge stretch to compare a doctor who spent years in medical school training to diagnose and treat medical problems with airport security guards.

      You go try screening young women for breast cancer on the street. Let me know how that works out for you if you can get onto slashdot from jail.

    321. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I read what I responded to. It was this:

      There's no reason for adult security officers to be yelling at a four-year-old child.

      Never mind "no reason" - they need to be punished for that, it's child abuse.

      Which can only be interpreted as "yelling at child is child abuse". Do you not understand the words coming out of your own mouth?

    322. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry but no I'm not a troll, I live in Switzerland and really, everyone here agreed it was a terrible act, but nonetheless the US ran for it.

    323. Re:Of course. by iamhassi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Citation please? According to Wikipedia, the only terrorist group to employ this tactic is Hamas, even though Israeli security does screen women -- which rather invalidates the theory.

      Israeli security uses racism which sounds like a better system than what we're using.

      Look like a terrorist? Get a pat down. Look like a four yr old blonde blue eyed girl hugging grandma? No pat down

      Mark me troll and flamebait all you want, but every time the TSA pat downs a little blonde girl the terrorist win again. They're using our morality against racism against us.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    324. Re:Of course. by ZackZero · · Score: 1

      You seemed to rather heavily imply that those who died deserved such, because of your rather broad wording. I'm not one to support starting crap with other countries, but I'm also not one to support a more isolationist standpoint. Of course, if people from abroad wish to kill civilians here, I support their being hunted as wild dogs.

    325. Re:Of course. by slack_justyb · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with plugging the hole. What I do cite as a concern is that you have adults trying to reason with a four year old at an adult level, which is idiotic at best. To a four year old yelling is about the worst thing you can do, yelling and pat-down and a bunch of people swarming around you to a four year old is worst than the worst thing that could happen to you. There was ample oppritunity to bring the noise down a touch, ten minutes is a lot of time in airport time.

      I understand that TSA needs to move a lot of people, really fast, but they also need to understand that the office is making special rules for people under twelve for a reason. They don't understand things at the same level older people understand things. Four year olds and such have to be shown what is going on, what's to be expected, and so on, in short they need to be taught the entire rigamaroll in situ. That takes time and calm and neither of those were exhibited in this instance.

      Again, plug holes where you need to, but understand that TSA needs to bring it down a level when it comes to kids. You can still screen them but it is going to take time and lots of level headedness. None which are qualities that TSA agents seem to exhibit. If that's not acceptable by society as a whole (why should I wait for someone else's f*** kid! Blah blah blah) then maybe that person needs to write congress to ban twelve and under from being at the airport. Because I've heard all kinds of arguments and none of them seem to make sense in a country where we still allow children on planes. Accept that kids will delay things a lot, or take kids out of airports and deal with the knowledge that you live in such a country.

      PS: That last bit wasn't aimed at you, just some a-hole I know that started a fuss when a group of five kids made him late for his plane in Chicago.

    326. Re:Of course. by _UnderTow_ · · Score: 2

      Note the "robots made of meat" part of the comment you replied to. Have you seen the people the TSA puts at the Checkpoints? I think the only reason we confuse them with thinking, rational humans is that they share the same general form.

    327. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's a sad day when a line like "turtles, all the way down." can be used to describe the grim nature of our dystopian future.

    328. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok let words it differently,

      9/11 - People OUTSIDE OF THE US can't believe people can do horrible act like that.
      9/12 - People start to understand that most reason stated by the terrorist for that attack are somewhat legitimate (the US would have acted the same if another country tried to invade them and change their culture, but with the blessing of the the UN)
      9/16 - The US declare war on terror and invade irak
      9/17 - Everyone face palm discouraged by the fact that the US still don't learn anything from the attack.

    329. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, I suppose that organizing voters, asking people to sign petitions to have referendums etc. passed, running for office with disbanding the TSA as a major policy plank, and other normally-legal political activities to ultimately have the TSA disbanded through the voting process could be considered "material support of terrorism"?

      Because, after all, if the TSA is disbanded, it would (in the government's twisted logic) be a victory for the terrorists. Right?

      J. Random Fed - "You're attempting to circulate a petition to put a measure on the ballot and/or running for office to have the TSA disbanded? Assume the position...you're being charged with providing material support for terrorism. No, you don't get a lawyer or trial under the NDAA and Patriot Acts. No, you get no call. Ever again."

      Makes you wonder if, just maybe, Timothy McVeigh was simply ahead of his time.

      You're a freaking nutcase.

      That the TSA must take these steps to prevent another attack and keep the public safe does not mean they are some kind of Enemy of Freedom(TM). If they Guantanamo'd some asshole that was trying to get the TSA disbanded by passing around a petition for some idiotic anti-TSA referendum vote or grabbing some elected office to do it, I'd applaud. People are too stupid to be allowed to set airline security policies with a vote by a bunch of Walmart-shopping, trailer-trash mouth-breathers.

      Screw your self-centered "freedom" bullshit. I want to be sure I and my family are safe when we fly.

    330. Re:Of course. by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      There are still boats and trains to less hostile countries.

    331. Re:Of course. by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      You don't actually have any children, do you?

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    332. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shame - I feel shame and helplessness. The country I fought for, and felt patriotic about, has completely lost it's mind. This isn't America any more, except in name only. The idea that the government can and will victimize small children in the name of security, shows how bankrupt the government has become, and how immoral we've become as citizens, because all of us allow it, and the worst of us support it.

      We've, as a nation, abandoned any sense of ethics, for the sake of protecting ourselves against 4 year old's and grandmothers. What's next, the torture chamber, for children - maybe rendition? Apparently the government and the people who support the TSA, think the thousands of children we've killed in our wars isn't enough. We have to turn against our own children.

      We can attempt to reason about this kind of act by the TSA, but there's nothing reasonable about it. It's just security theater, at a very high cost to the entire travelling public. Ben Laden wanted to destroy our democracy, but we've done it to ourselves.

      Shame on us.

    333. Re:Of course. by NeverSuchBefore · · Score: 1

      1) If you create an exemption to searches, those exemptions are EXACTLY where bad people would hide the bombs.

      I didn't say anything about creating exemptions (Or perhaps that wasn't directed at me specifically?). I despise the TSA in its entirety and would rather risk a terrorist attack (not like the TSA are at all useful, for reasons already mentioned, anyway) than give up freedom and privacy for security theater.

    334. Re:Of course. by residieu · · Score: 1

      I'd be happy to board a plane where neither the little girl nor your young Arab had to do anything but walk through the metal detector.

    335. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? You mod this insightful? The commenter promises death to someone for patting down a frightened child, and you mod this insightful? This isn't even a rational response to TFA. Pray tell what insight garnered a 5?

    336. Re:Of course. by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      I can promise you right now if anyone ever did that to my daughter they wouldn't be breathing for long after. TSA, cop, a judge, The Pope, The Queen, I don't really care who it is they would be dead before they hit the ground.

      Where's the +5, Funny mod?

      That boast would last about 3 seconds until the TSA subdued you for attacking their agents. Of course, you yourself would be unarmed after having just gone through security to board your plane. But I'm sure you could kill them all with your bare hands before they could draw their weapons, Mr. Internet Tough Guy.

    337. Re:Of course. by residieu · · Score: 1

      You'd think these random searches would find someone... IF you were a terrorist, wouldn't you be testing the TSA, finding out what you can get through security... If you can convince people to blow themselves up, surely you can sacrifice a few to get caught by security.

    338. Re:Of course. by Mikachu · · Score: 1

      The British and Israelis have to be looking at us as if we are epic cowards. Both have endured terrorist bombings like we do thunderstorms. Yet, they didn't turn into whining sniveling dogs, cowering to authority, handing over civil liberties for a hint of safety.

      Have you been to either of these countries? Cameras litter the streets of Britain, many have claimed they are more of a police state than the U.S. is now. Israel has security checkpoints with metal detectors at shopping malls (I've been through them, and the guards aren't much more charming than TSA agents). Make no mistake, this isn't an American problem, this is a progression in Western society in general.

    339. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the news stories I've read about female suicide bombers, they're usually widows of terrorists who are coerced into doing it. I'd imagine that its pretty easy to coerce them into doing it, since without dad, mom has no way of supporting her family- but in my view this makes them victims of the bombing, not "agents" of it.

    340. Re:Of course. by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      There's something seriously, seriously wrong with you if you'd kill someone over an incident like this. Get some perspective, man. Maybe the resulting decades in prison for murder would teach you some, while someone else raises your child.

    341. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give me a break. While I think we should get rid of having government screen people or require any company or third party to do so it should be up to the airlines. saying rape is the worst thing ever and murder is thus justified completely takes things out of proportion. I sought your actions would match your reality had this happened. Had they though YOU are a threat to the well being of society and no better than the governments actions here. What it comes down to is if the screening costs outweigh the negatives (I'm sure they do). The airlines should be able to make the decision to stop screening based on this. Even on 9/11 not all planes hit their mark and one was stopped by passengers. Hardening cockpit doors makes sense. Screening does not. Flying is much safer than driving and it has nothing to do with screening. It has to do with accidents and the like.

      If we all calmed down a bit, took a step back, and then let people who are extremely calm and don't get all emotional about death, molestation, and other things we would live in a much safer privacy preserving world. The terrorists win not because of the death toll. They win because we destroyed America over them.

    342. Re:Of course. by englishknnigits · · Score: 1

      That experiment is way overrated and actually demonstrated very little. The instructor stated he was a doctor and insured the person administering the shock that it would not harm the person receiving the shock. What the shocker would be weighing is the likelihood that the doctor would throw away his career and risk spending the rest of his life in jail just to have you shock someone vs the experiment being legitimate and acceptable. If the instructor had said he was some guy off the street who "just wanted to try something" I doubt many, if any, individuals would have participated. That would have been a much more useful, albeit predictable, experiment.

    343. Re:Of course. by ZackZero · · Score: 0

      Okay, let's have a bit of remedial 21st-century history. Iraq (yes, that's the correct spelling) was not the nation invaded in the beginning, and not as early as 16 September 2001. Afghanistan, a nation then ruled by the Taliban, an Islamic fundamentalist group, was invaded on 7 October of that year - actually fairly apt, because the chief architect of the 11 September attacks, one Osama bin Laden, was much later found not that far across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and killed in a covert-op. Regardless of how legitimate the reasons were for the 11 September attacks, their focus on American civilians (being that the World Trade Center, a civilian office complex, was the location with the most casualties that day, and four passenger-loaded civilian airliners were either plowed into the WTC towers, the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, or in the case of United Airlines #93, forced down in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, by passengers who revolted against the hijackers and sacrificed their own lives to save many others) distances the event from any interpretation as an act of retaliation or retribution, and instead leaves it fully as a war crime and human atrocity. We, as Americans, learned not to be complacent simply because two large oceans flank our nation's borders, and that our new enemies weren't necessarily entire nations, but rather distributed groups without direct national affiliation. If you can't get those things straight... then please don't lecture us on our conduct since 11 September, SIR.

    344. Re:Of course. by evil_aaronm · · Score: 2

      The TSA provides a valuable service

      Citation, please.

    345. Re:Of course. by Lurker2288 · · Score: 1

      I don't really see how air marshalls solve anything. Since 9/11 there have been several incidents of suspicious or dangerous behavior on planes, e.g., the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, even that pilot who flipped out in flight a few weeks ago. In each of these situations, the offender was restrained by passengers armed with nothing more than what they'd carried on to the plane. Having a big guy with a bean bag launcher wouldn't have changed that. I would go so far as to say it would be almost impossible to carry out a 9/11-type plot on an airplane at this point--hence the focus on explosives. Bruce Schneier said it nicely: the only two things that have improved airline security since 9/11 are reinforced cockpit doors and passenger awareness. We'd be better off relaxing the current security standards to pre-9/11 levels (minus box cutters and things of that nature) and using the money saved to fund better intelligence and investigation of threats.

    346. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I speak french most of the time, and in french it's Irak, it's not because the US think english is the only language worth speaking that it's the case (again they should stop being egocentric) also, didn't read the rest, too much uninteresting.

    347. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      + fucking 1!

      Utterly unacceptable behaviour. I would certainly issue a loud and threatening command to release my daughter first but, facing resistance, I would strike violently and with intent to kill.

      This action is not rational and certainly will be to the detriment of myself and my daughter in the long term but I'm sure I would not be able to act rationally in such a situation.

    348. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you REALLY think that ANYONE is ever going to be able to hijack a plane with a knife or a sharp object ever again? A guy was killed on a SW Airlines flight after going into a rage. Many people, including pilots and flight attendants have been restrained by passengers and crew. No chance in hell, even if going op against a knife unarmed will people let someone hijack a plane again.

    349. Re:Of course. by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      If searches are really random, controlled by a computer, for example, there's no possible way a terrorist can test the system. He won't get any information out of it.

    350. Re:Of course. by jo42 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      please don't lecture us on our conduct since 11 September

      Pissed away trillions of dollars, killed tens of thousands of brown people and fucked up the world economy. Good going there land of the free, home of the brave. Now fuck off and stop bullying the rest of the world around, Amerikhun Dumbtard.

    351. Re:Of course. by proslack · · Score: 1

      They aren't actually armed as they are not, in fact, law enforcement officers. That's why you still have *real* law enforcement (aka police) at the airport. All these TSA types can do is call the real cops if there's a problem. A Brink's driver or a Pinkerton detective have more training and authority than TSA.

      --


      Floating in the black seas of infinity without a paddle.
    352. Re:Of course. by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

      Really wish I had mod points today. +5 ironic.

    353. Re:Of course. by Lurker2288 · · Score: 1

      That position makes sense if you believe that other people will actually stand with you. Personally, when I observe the way people drive in traffic, or the way they leave a public restroom, it becomes very clear to me that you can't expect the average person to show the slightest consideration for his fellows unless there is some incentive for him to do so. The GPP is a clear example of that--if the other people at the checkpoint when the little girl ran away had refused to allow them to hold the parents, the screeners might have backed down. But they all considered the risk of missing their flights, or the chance of being detained or arrested, and they decided to do nothing.

      My point being, if you're arguing that civil disoberdience in the solution to this problem, I'd like for you to explain what gives you confidence that other people will stand with you. I thought National Opt-Out Day was a great idea, but it probably wasn't enough to really hurt the TSA. Maybe an Occupy Airport movement, lasting days, would do the job.

    354. Re:Of course. by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 1

      I don't quite understand why so many USians are so wound up about pat-downs. They are standard practice around the world in any environment where certain items must be excluded from a physical space.

      No they aren't. All I ever had to do to get in to a court building or police station was go through a metal detector.

    355. Re:Of course. by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      Um, if they blew up an airport security checkpoint I guarantee you a LOT of people will stop flying permanently.
      A plane? Eh, a couple hundred people bound for one place.
      Airport security? Many more, all bound for different places and no chance to fight back.
      If the terrorists wanted to do anything bad they'd have already done it. Fact is, there really aren't many and this is just a dumb excuse for money to flow to a few cronies. Oink Oink.

      --
      -
    356. Re:Of course. by russotto · · Score: 1

      It's the same fucking bullshit with the DEA. Proceeds from property confiscations make up a huge chunk of their budget. The real question is, when are enough people going to start getting pissed off about this shit to do something about it?

      About the fifth of never. The age of freedom is over; liberty has neither constituency nor champion. (and no, also-ran Republican presidential candidates do not count).

    357. Re:Of course. by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      If they Guantanamo'd some asshole that was trying to get the TSA disbanded by passing around a petition for some idiotic anti-TSA referendum vote or grabbing some elected office to do it, I'd applaud. People are too stupid to be allowed to set airline security policies with a vote by a bunch of Walmart-shopping, trailer-trash mouth-breathers.

      Screw your self-centered "freedom" bullshit. I want to be sure I and my family are safe when we fly.

      OMFG!!!!

      [facepalm]

      We're frickin' DOOMED!!

      I bet you purchased the Best Buy extended warranty for your replacement keyboard too, didn't you?

      Is it something they put in the water?

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    358. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite right.

      Get enough people bottlenecked at a checkpoint and you just give the terrorists an easier target.

      And as a bonus.. they might get some of the screeners!!!

    359. Re:Of course. by Cederic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Someone feels up my daughter and I will be ok with the prison time that comes for beating a TSA thug to death.

      Someone however makes your daughter cry by patting her down because her psychotic father has demonstrated so little control that he can't be trusted not to try and hide weapons on here, and you'll kill them for doing their job?

      Pass my commiserations on to your daughter. I hope she manages to escape you soon.

    360. Re:Of course. by ZackZero · · Score: 1

      please don't lecture us on our conduct since 11 September

      Pissed away trillions of dollars, killed tens of thousands of brown people and fucked up the world economy. Good going there land of the free, home of the brave. Now fuck off and stop bullying the rest of the world around, Amerikhun Dumbtard.

      And how the hell your comment has a score of 2 mystifies me. Closed-minded, ignores the context of the portion that you had quoted, and blatantly inflammatory. Now, if you wanted to have a polite debate, I'd have been happy to oblige. Clearly, you don't.

    361. Re:Of course. by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately we seem to be following a similar path in Britain, and wider Europe, as well these days. There is still some degree of political opposition to over-reaching security provisions that conflict with civil liberties here, more so than in the US it seems, but we have the virtual strip search machines at airports and we send passenger data to US authorities and we see repeated efforts to install systematic spyware and censorship tools into communications networks and so on.

      I'm hopeful that clearer heads will prevail and public sentiment will turn against the unbalanced policy before it becomes too deeply entrenched, but alas our political leaders seem to lack the spine that some of their predecessors from a generation or two ago showed in the face of hostility.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    362. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately those airplanes would then have to share the same sky as all the others. And still get crashed into the buildings/offices/schools/hospitals/stadiums/whatever. This is why there is almost no security on trains, they have a very limited amount of options for harming anyone not on the train itself.

    363. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was clear, functional, simple and elegant before the feature creep took place.

      What, like civil rights? Women's suffrage? Which features do you consider 'creep' here?

      The software term is `feature creep'. I don't actually consider the erosion of rights in this country `features'.

      This country was unique in the world, in that men were considered to be given intrinsic and inviolable rights from their Maker, and then delegated specific limited authorities to their political representatives. Everything not so delegated was retained by the People, or the various States, respectively. As the Supreme Court may have said best:

      “...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves....” (Chisholm v. Georgia (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 Dall (1793) p.471-472.)

      As the sovereign rulers - with the politicians merely their elected representatives - citizens were so free that they could do essentially anything that didn't violate anyone else's life, rights or property, provided they kept any contracts into which they chose to enter. No victimless crime legislation. No mandatory government benefits programs. No driver's licenses, speed limits, nor mandatory auto insurance - but the moment you hit someone, you were liable for your actions. Nobody dared to pretend that whatever dripped out of a politician's pen somehow automatically became a valid law - for it to be valid, it must derive from what limited authorities we had already delegated to them. Income taxes were not thought to be mandatory, nor were they collected by a private corporation that was created offshore in a federal possession because they would be unconstitutional here, and by the same organization as the BATF.

      When we retained our Common Law venue, rather than having magistrates called judges preside over British-style chancery courts (where citizens are tried for offenses against `the state' rather than demonstrated harms against other citizens), enforcing all the whimsical state-generated legislation.

      When we had our original representative republic form of government (remember reciting the Pledge of Allegience?) rather than a fascist plutocracy purporting to be a democracy. Under a republic, rights are considered inviolate and when someone encroaches against your rights, they're liable. Under a democracy, your rights are whatever the majority says you have as rights.

      Contrasted with today, the distinction is pretty apparent. And it took so long to erode because the citizenry actually bothered to learn the law, rather than have misperceptions about it fed to them by a consolidated mainstream media and public "education" program.

    364. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "whether or not another terrorist attack could occur. 9/11 was a first in the USA since... forever."
      Minor nit:
      WTC bombing: 1993
      Oklahoma City: 1995

      8 and 6 years is not quite forever.

    365. Re:Of course. by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Terrorists did it in Russia last year, or at least close enough to make the point. It killed 37 and injured 173 when it was set off in the baggage claim area. Had it been set off in the security lines, the casualties might have been greater.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    366. Re:Of course. by Kirrilian · · Score: 1

      sacrifice their mother in law.

      Agreed. Not much of a stretch there.

    367. Re:Of course. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Civilians deserved to die because of this?

      Welcome to asymmetric warfare. I go to war with a militarily superior enemy, you bet I'm going to hit the soft targets.

      If I can get a decade of worldwide TV coverage, destroy the way of life of my enemy and inspire a generation to join my cause then I'm going to consider that soft target a bloody good choice.

      Anybody declares war on my country, I wont pretend for a moment that they can't hurt me because I'm a civilian. I'll defend my country.

    368. Re:Of course. by cdrguru · · Score: 0

      Well, for folks that actually read stuff...

      You might recall that during the Vietnam war that children were often used to carry bombs. American soldiers would rush to get the kid out of the line of fire and to "safety" and once back in the lines - BOOM! I don't think this was the first time it was done either.

      Wikipedia is edited by 20-somethings that really think the world began when they were born and nothing before that counts... sort of pre-historical times.

    369. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check O'Hare Terminal 1 checkpoint at 6:00 AM on any weekday morning

    370. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just love all the medical analogies, supposedly if it's done at the doctor it is ok for the TSA to do ?
      Then you'd (even if grudgingly) accept a proper vaginal pap smear of your wife or young daughter forcefully done to them by the TSA professionals ?

    371. Re:Of course. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Especially, "pregnant". Sure. So that's not 14lb of semtex tucked up your jumper then, you really are going to fly while pregnant?

    372. Re:Of course. by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      There is no big fat insurance carrier for the airport. Blow up 100 people and the airport would simply shug and say their insurance doesn't cover that. Since most airports are attached to the municipality, there is literally nobody to sue. Sort of loses the impact.

      Contrast this with an airliner where the surviving families each sue for 10 million each. And the insurance makes a big deal about it. The case goes on and on in the press until finally a settlement is made 20 years later. An airliner crash is a gift that keeps on giving in terms of publicity.

    373. Re:Of course. by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Here's the thing: No one's saying small children should be excluded from screening.

      Wrong. We should all be excluded from this screening.

      Metal detectors and dogs are all you need.
      You also need to keep masses of people from being confined in a small space because then they're just a target. But speeding up the security process (by using just metal detectors and dogs) is the best way to do that.

      You don't even need locked cockpit doors. No plane in America will ever be hijacked in 9/11 style again. Passengers won't allow it.

    374. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Elections NEVER were a check on things.

      Once the bastards get into office they're untouchable until the next election and until then they're free to earn themselves a cushy private sector job by ass-raping us.

      I'm guessing from this you are an American (might be wrong, but see this attitude a lot from Americans). From the perspective of an European country, elections are so most definitely a check on things. Nothing is perfect, and there are often a time lag, but if the majority of people actually engage and vote actively, election after election (and engage between elections), you'll find out that there are/you will get politicians that want to be elected for more than 4 years before being booted out on their ass by an active voting majority. And you select for those.

    375. Re:Of course. by Sydin · · Score: 0

      Yo dog.

    376. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please forgive him. There's a general tendency in the USA to think that terrorism was invented on September 11th, 2001. It's a pretty amazing phenomenon.

    377. Re:Of course. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      And those unfortunate children brainwashed into carrying out suicide attacks are typically teenagers living in abject poverty

      Are you sure about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attack#Profile_of_attackers

      I recall reading an article some time ago that drew attention to the prevalence of agitated middle-class young adults as suicide bombers in attacks against Israel.

    378. Re:Of course. by ZackZero · · Score: 1

      I'm not denying that they exploited a soft target as opposed to well-defended ("hard") targets on 11 September. I was just set off by his wording, which to me implied that he thought that those who died that day deserved to die because of past military policy.

    379. Re:Of course. by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      The 2004 Russian airline bombing where two women boarded separate planes and detonated bombs minutes apart come to mind.

      Iraq and Afghanistan have both seen the use of female bombers. Iraq also saw the use of mentally handicapped children as bomb carriers (detonated remotely) because soldiers and police didn't believe at first that anyone would put one on them.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    380. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Training the TSA staff on dealing properly with upset children? Training? What kind of person needs training in how to be a decent human being to a child? Oh, right ...

      OK, here is the thing. No amount of training will matter. With the TSA, as with all things, you get what you pay for. In this case, we have hired a bunch of people at extremely low salaries, and ensured that they have no right to unionize to get a better standard of living and self-respect. The result: a pack of untrainable, uneducatable, otherwise-unemployable thugs.

      I really wish folks would stop acting surprised that the TSA is what it is, given how the TSA is staffed and how its employees are paid. Just as no one should be surprised at the behavior of the shittily-paid police against old ladies and kids in the Occupy movement. Treat people like crap, and they will turn around and treat others like crap too. This should not be news to anyone.

      If airport safety is important to you, invest in the people who will make it safe. Otherwise, take what the people in Congress -- who you voted for (or failed to oppose) -- have given you.

    381. Re:Of course. by VolciMaster · · Score: 1
      Then wikipedia has failed you - the Tamil Tigers did this, too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/21/newsid_2504000/2504739.stm

      It later emerged that a female Tamil Tiger (LTTE) suicide bomber had assassinated Rajiv Gandhi.

      Saw a great film about this in college, too

    382. Re:Of course. by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      On a 3 hour flight, you will receive the equivalent of 60 TSA scans from atmospheric radiation due to altitude.
      On a 18 hour international flight, the equivalent of 360 scans.

      According to the numbers the scanner manufacturers claim their scanners output. Not like it's ever happened before that a radiation producing machine wasn't quite to specification, right?

    383. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if one of the guys watching grabbed your daughter to prevent her from running away, how likely would it be that someone would accuse him of attempting kidnapping?

      Terrorized weaklings because some parents/people are completely untrusting and accusation are enough to destory someone's life. The risk isn't worth it.

      Did your sister ask for anyone to grab her or was she just screaming at everyone? I wouldn't help a crazed person, but if calmly asked, I would help. Keep your cool and things turn out better.

    384. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can leave, they just give you a MASSIVE fine and you'll likely never fly again. And when the watch lists expends to buses and trains, you'll never be able to use public transportation again.

    385. Re:Of course. by psydeshow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On a 18 hour international flight, the equivalent of 360 scans.

      A large dose spread out over time is less harmful than a medium dose all in one instant. No?

      Also, I'm not concerned about a well-calibrated and maintained machine, operated by a competent engineer. I am fucking terrified of being told to stand in a machine that might be malfunctioning or dys-calibrated, or where the hourly government worker at the controls doesn't know what he's doing.

      You can't read stories like this and then think that everything is going to work perfectly at the checkpoints. There is a long and cherished track record of stupidity in this business.

    386. Re:Of course. by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      You talk a good game, but I'm sure that when it comes down to it, you'll be just as accepting of your daughter's pat-down as anyone else is.

      If pat downs are truly a necessary part of airport security, then you have to enforce them consistently. If you have a special class of people who won't receive them -- congratulations! You've just defeated your own security protocol! You might as well pat down nobody!

      The white elephant in the room that nobody seems willing to point out is that *nobody* should be getting fucking pat downs to get on an airplane. When you accept pat downs as normal, this is what you get: EVERYBODY gets them.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    387. Re:Of course. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      A tantrum is what the TSA did in response.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    388. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Furthermore, according to the grandmother the child was wearing tight leggings and a close fitting t-shirt. There was nowhere for her to have put a weapon of any size *and* the screeners saw her run over and hug her grandmother. It would have taken magician-level slight of hand skills for her to have concealed anything while being watched by the TSA in the first place. The reason they insisted on screening her was that she touched her grandmother.

      The problem is that they aren't allowed to make common-sense judgment calls. It's crazy, and all due to government CYA attitudes.

    389. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look out, we got a badass over here.

      You wouldn't do shit, geek.

      And great plan if you did. Daddy goes to prison for life for murder. Yeah, duress, right. That'll fly in court. Or you'd just be gunned down by security on the spot. Get your empty head out of movie-fantasy-land.

      I'm not saying we don't fight this crap. What I'm saying is you are a total and complete idiot.

    390. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole screening thing just bothers my geeky parts. How come we spent billions for machines that aren't good enough to screen my shoes and coat and can't tell if I have a bomb in my belt. How many man(or woman) hours are wasted in airports dressing and undressing for the screening.

      Why pay all this for a faulty machine. It should be able to screen me with all my clothes on.

      Ok. Maybe it won't work if I wear a tin-foil coat and hat but it should be able to detect the cases with poor coverage and send me back for a repeat with no coat and no hat.

    391. Re:Of course. by tilante · · Score: 1

      "Screening is unnecessary" is not the same as "small children should be excluded".

    392. Re:Of course. by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 1

      It's interesting that your post is modded funny since I'm almost certain you meant exactly what you said. It's also funny that the "terrorists" are having a grand old time watching us all be a bunch of pansy dipshits. Just as effective with none of the suicide!!

    393. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh sure they don't cower and snivel.

      They just get cameras on every damned street corner, watching their every move.

      Real courageous.

      Everyone's a fucking wimp. This is crazy.

    394. Re:Of course. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      afterwards probably ponder in jail what good your token resistance did while your child is raised in some state orphanage.

      At least then the child will grow up knowing what relationship he has to the state. This 4 year old child will never trust authority again. She has first hand experience with the depravity that comes with authority.

      Authority is the enemy.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    395. Re:Of course. by tilante · · Score: 2
      Please try reading the whole thing, and responding to the whole thing. As I pointed out:

      She interacted with an adult who had been pulled aside because the adult set off the metal detector. It's not unreasonable to say, "Okay, check her for metal objects, then."

      Further, when the TSA agents refused to do that, the family was willing to have their child patted down, but not to have her patted down out of their sight.

      So, it still appears to me that the family was being reasonable here. They made a suggestion for a search method that might not upset the child as much. When that was rejected by the TSA agents, they kept being reasonable, with a counter-proposal that the child be searched by the method the TSA agents desired, but with one off the adults who had already been screened with her.

      Meanwhile, the TSA agents were yelling at a four-year-old, trying to take her away out of sight of her family, and otherwise behaving in ways that any reasonable adult should realize were going to upset the child even more.

    396. Re:Of course. by Tharkkun · · Score: 1

      No shit. I can promise you right now if anyone ever did that to my daughter they wouldn't be breathing for long after. TSA, cop, a judge, The Pope, The Queen, I don't really care who it is they would be dead before they hit the ground. Duress is applicable when it's your child being attacked and molested.

      You could teach your child proper behavioral skills instead. Fail parenting is not an excuse for your child to cause a incident.

    397. Re:Of course. by schlachter · · Score: 1

      Really? Funny, but I can't remember a single example of a 4-year-old obviously American child traveling in the US with her grandmother who has ever blown anything up.

      This is because TSA's policies has successfully prevented all such attacks!

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    398. Re:Of course. by lgw · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The kdi still goes through the metal detector. I'm completely comfprtable with no additional security. No molesting, no pedo-scope, none of that really helps security any. There's just not much of a threat from hijacking using an improvised weapon these days - the better cabin door and the passengers will see to that.

      Can we please go back to pre-TSA security in aiports? A metal detector and an X-ray for carry-ons is enough. I don't care if there's an occasional problem as a result, that's enough to keep flying safer than driving, and it's not worth sacrificing my dignity for tiny incremental improvements beyond that.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    399. Re:Of course. by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely correct. This is why we are not allowed to drive, since accidents could be exploited by the strapped and/or exploding terrorists. It's also why we're not allowed to have sex (terrorism STDs), eat (terrorism salmonella), use paper (terrorism paper cuts), watch TV (terrorism eye-strain), wear brightly colored clothes (makes you a terrorism target), get paid (money could fund terrorism), grow "middle-eastern" beards (this is like implanting a terrorism RFID tag), or play music (subliminal terrorism is, like, the worst kind (obey!)).

      It's potentially a very, very scary world, sir, but there's not enough fingers in existence to plug the real-world firewall. Trying to protect people from highly improbably occurrences is arguably ok, I guess (seems a waste of money to me but whatever; it provides jobs yada yada). When the "protection" stomps our fundamental freedoms, though, it's time to say "No."

      Know what's scarier than "terrorists" lurking behind every garbage can and fuselage? The fact that there is probably zero chance of the TSA ever being disbanded.

    400. Re:Of course. by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Well, not exactly what you were asking for, but Hindawi packed the bomb into the carry-on bag of his pregnant Irish fiancee.

      So it's not really a stretch to think that someone would be depraved enough to hide a bomb on their little daughter and sacrifice their mother in law. Same for e.g. the neighbor's little daughter and her grandmother. Illustrates nicely why racial profiling doesn't work, either.

      ...

      Well, i guess that's would be the same as "it's not a stretch that the 911 was an inside job."

      --
      Be seeing you...
    401. Re:Of course. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly. Why use a duffel bag when an almost carry on legal (you know those big ones people try for 5 minutes to get into the overhead compartment) suite case with wheels would be much easier to carry into the middle of a security line. The hold as much as a duffel bag but much easier to carry. Also the ball bearings, nails, or screws would be the denser component of that setup.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    402. Re:Of course. by lgw · · Score: 1

      What do you mean by "screening"?

      Everyone should walk through a metal detector. And that's enough security! No pat-downs or othe BS is needed. When shit like this happens, the family just needed to walk through the metal detector again.

      You can't give kids a free pass though security, the exploit there is obvious. But we shouldn't toleate security that's affornts our dignity! If it would be uncool to do to a 4-year-old or 80-year old, it's uncool for everyone. Enough with this over-the-top BS!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    403. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do ethnic profiling, yes, but they also do behavioral profiling as well. Nobody is exempt from that in Israel.

    404. Re:Of course. by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Evidence suggests that the Boston Massacre was an accident, not an attempt by the British to oppress a crowd. A crowd brought out by the arrogance of one British soldier turned ugly and the British soldiers lost their discipline, opening fire almost randomly and against the orders of the officer on the scene who was standing in front of his men when they started firing. The propaganda battle was won handily by those who would soon clamor for independence, but in reality the colonists were at least as much to blame for what happened.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    405. Re:Of course. by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To catch all the metallic plastic explosives she had on her?

      Wait, that's not right... plastic explosives AREN'T metallic.

      And your point is? I seriously don't give a fuck any more if some iditon wants to try to bomb a plane! It's simply better for our collective liberty and dignity to tolerate the occasional exploding plane than to tolerate the TSA! N one is going to hijack a plane any more with improvised weapons. Metal detectors are fine. The security checkpoints themselves are a far better target for a guy with a bomb than a plane would be - everything beyond metal detectors is just so fucking pointless!

      Travel will never be 100% safe. Just fucking accept that fact and get on with life with some dignity!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    406. Re:Of course. by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Consider who the terrorists are.

      terrorist

      1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
      2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.

      terrorism

      1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
      2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
      3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

      You'll find that the terrorists in this situation aren't nameless faceless Arabic speaking people with binary explosives in their luggage, or underwear made of C4. Those who inspire terror are present in every airport, every border, and throughout the US. They arrest people off the streets because they may not have the right papers (4th amendment). They can take you for dissenting opinions (1st amendment). They can arrest and hold you indefinitely (8th amendment). They conduct wars on the other side of the world in the name of stopping terrorism, yet they are the terrorists. How many sovereign nations are now occupied by US troops, with continuing operations there?

          This is not intended to be negative in any sort of way to our troops. It is negative to the terrorism leaders, who continue to conduct these operations.

          For those that say the government are not terrorists, think about it a little. Who forced themselves on a 4 year old girl? Who feels it is appropriate to molest anyone who wishes to travel? Who makes you file papers under the threat of seizing your income, property, and possibly putting you in jail, and the threat stands if you did file them, but made mistakes? Ask the hundreds of thousands world wide who have lost loved ones in the last decade at the hands of US troops. Ask that little girl if she's scared of the big scary people in blue shirts.

          I'm scared of the US Government. They concern me more than gang bangers on the corner, or people making noise on the other side of the world.

          The TSA, DHS, and ICE are the largest terror groups in the United States. Branches of the DoD and their associates are the largest terror group world wide.

          I intentionally left the FBI and CIA out of the above references. They do excellent work, although it doesn't make the news frequently.

          I honestly don't understand why we continue to stand for it.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    407. Re:Of course. by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your post highlights the security equivalent of a classic tech support call. Bravo.

      "Is it plugged in?"
      "Yes".
      Two hours goes by, filled with troubleshooting and face-palming, clever and wily efforts to pinpoint an apparent phase of the moon issue, and some very inventive muted swearwords.
      "Are you SURE it's plugged in?"
      "Uh.... Oh.... Ooops."
      "Sir, thank you for helping me realize this is my last day at this job."

      We are all so damn terrified (actually... I think it's more that we're TOLD that we're all terrified; I really don't know anybody who actually is) that we're willing to overlook the most obvious truths. All we've done is make it so terrorist organizations can vacation in Bermuda since they no longer have to spend their frequent flier miles on suicide missions.

    408. Re:Of course. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      It also fails to find shotgun shell, and rifle rounds, but does seem to to a good job of finding old metal body SLR cameras.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    409. Re:Of course. by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure the terrorists' main goal is making us sue each other.

      In fact, I'd think the scary terrorists are far more satisfied with things the way they are. Every American that flies is reminded that they are potential targets for terrorism. From moment they arrive at the local airport to the moment they drive away from the destination airport, that fact is pounded home by the TSA and other agencies.

      This ultra-broad scale of constant fear is a pretty amazing accomplishment for a group resorting to terror tactics, no? (side note: can anybody out there think of a more literal example of "by definition"?)

    410. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the inevitable take down happens, we'll be sure to put collaborators like you on the no fly list.

      If you can't afford others their liberty, DON'T FLY!

    411. Re:Of course. by Prune · · Score: 1

      They're looking for cash? That's funny, because the US government is not revenue constrained. There's no constitutional limit on creating any amount of money, and in fact that's one of the most important policy tools of a sovereign nation (the EU members gave that up, and it has ended with disaster except for the mercantilist Germans, as was predicted by Modern Monetary Theory many years ago). This is all the more clear when one notes that there is no operational connection between government spending and subsequent taxation or public/foreign borrowing (much like bank lending is not really reserve constrained since banks lend unconstrained during the day and borrow anything they need to make up for reserves from the overnight market--and even the Fed itself). Much of the debt is just an accounting fiction registered between the Fed and treasury (being about as meaningful as the between a husband and wife), and legally, 100% of government debt could be made in this form--there could legally be zero public borrowing and no taxation. The appearance that taxes pay for anything is just an illusion, since tax "revenue" does not make any legal constraint on spending. But borrowing is done due to custom and ideological and political considerations which are vestigial from the times of gold-backed currency--not any current legal constraints. Taxation's actual role, however, is critically important: it forces private entities to use the government issued currency. You can only pay the IRS in US dollars. More information: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1905625 or lighter reading at http://www.cnbc.com/id/45795986 as well as http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/ and http://moslereconomics.com/ MMT has been around for quite a while and derives from the old Chartalism, but nowadays it's really starting to gain steam, and some MMT ideas have been co-opted by other economic schools. Back to the original point, government doesn't need covert means of funding agencies such as the TSA because it can do so easily with legal means. Your conspiracy theory is superfluous.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    412. Re:Of course. by Prune · · Score: 1

      Oops, dropped a word there. "being about as meaningful as the between a husband and wife" --> "being about as meaningful as the DEBT between a husband and wife"

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    413. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? You're funny. You talk a big game but I suspect you're full of shit. When I read a story somewhere that goes "A blogger who posts under the name anomaly256 on slashdot.org was jailed after murdering a TSA agent (or cop, or judge, or poop, or queen, etc.) after an incident in which his/her daughter was patted down at an airport," etc., THEN I'll believe it. In the meantime, I am going to assume that like Ted Nugent, when he made thinly veiled threats against the person of the President, that you are completely FULL OF SHIT, and hot air. If someone in a position to fuck you up did something to your kid, you wouldn't do a fucking thing, because you KNOW, like all the other cowards in the formerly free country commonly known as "America," that if you did that, you'd lose what is left of your liberties, and would be killed or jailed, and then there'd be no one to protect your precious little daughter from all the OTHER threats out there.

      The founders of this "nation" did something funny and interesting, they rebelled against a national government, became outlaws in so doing, were proud to be so, and as soon as they won their "freedom", almost the VERY FIRST THING THEY DID was to outlaw rebellion against THEM. Pretty funny, when you think about it. The downfall of the Articles of Confederation, and the drafting of the Constitution in its place, circa 1787, was the result, by and large, or rebellion after rebellion in which individuals evidently said to themselves "if THEY can rebel against England, I/WE can rebel against THEM". The closing of that can of worms was accomplished with the promise of enacting what became the Bill of Rights, but in the wake of the NDAA, perpetual "war", spying on Americans without any oversight, secret files on Americans, the selling out of America for money and power, bribery made legal by calling it lobbying, etc. etc. etC., let me ask you...

      Where are your rights NOW? Truth is they were gone before any of us were born, what's changed is that the government is getting progressively less concerned about keeping up the illusion that we have any rights. At least when they still had to pretend, you were still at least somewhat free-ish. Now they barely even bother to do that. I'm not saying the end is near, for this once-great nation... I'm saying it already ended. The engines have fallen off the fucking plane, but the stewardesses and the "captain" keep insisting "the plane is fine, and would you please stop looking out the goddamned windows?"

      The economy can never recover because we've spent all the fucking money, and we can't produce value like we used to, because all this money came to be in the first place on the backs of slave-labor, (did we all forget about that)? And in the wake of the abolition of slavery, there was still a gazillion dollars worth of tainted wealth floating around in the system, but it has been squandered, and we no longer produce anything like as much as we spend. Really. Why the fuck do you think we sink deeper and deeper into debt, as a nation, each year? Because we spend more than we produce. It's the simplest form of goddamned fucking math, but people in this country seem too fucking stupid to get it... I blame the "education" system, which for... well, since before I attended, has really been a system for babysitting and indoctrinating children into our culture until they're old enough to put into jail if they misbehave. It's not there to educate, it's there to refine a group of rebel spirits into good drones, who will show up at jobs and work until they're old and dead inside, soon to be dead outside as well. What can we do?

      Not a damn thing. The system is designed to prevent it. Enjoy. :-)

    414. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least then the child will grow up knowing what relationship he has to the state. This 4 year old child will never trust authority again. She has first hand experience with the depravity that comes with authority.

      Authority is the enemy.

      I doubt that will happen. The child would be traumatized by the event.

      She probably won't turn out to be that wonderful. If she does, the story would make for a good based-on-a-true-story novel, then comes the TV interview, then the movie based on the book, then the book based on the movie of the book, then a documentary on people like her, and all along the way people follow her on twitter and facebook, her whole life will never be the same again.

    415. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure that there are no errors in the software running the device? Are you sure the device is configured correctly?

    416. Re:Of course. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      TSA: Government Work Program for the unemployable.

      What's weird is to think that these people are the result of unfunded federal mandates like No Child Left Behind...

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    417. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cancer biologist here, hate to break it to you, but there is a difference between radiation from nature and radiation from man-made sources. I would err on the side of caution, and say that less radiation is good. Can we quanitfy the amount of safety this gives us on a cost basis?

      Since we do not know the costs (as they will pay off much later in life, if they do), outside of the dollar cost, and the benefit looks like we've caught ?? terrorists, we should err on the side of not giving INNOCENTS a higher incidence of cancer.

    418. Re:Of course. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I would say that the best example of them acknowledging that neither works is that you could be pulled out while boarding and searched again by a roving TSA checkpoint. I had this happen at the Baltimore airport last year.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    419. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did have cancer at age 10 you insensitive clod!

    420. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really don't know much about liberties in the UK

    421. Re:Of course. by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Those of us who will still fly will appreciate the extra room on the planes and the lower fares.
      There will be more room on the planes until they catch on and reduce the number of flights or the size of the planes. As far as reducing the fares, I don't see that happening at all. Lower number of passengers means higher cost per passenger.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    422. Re:Of course. by holmstar · · Score: 2

      I'd argue that there is little point in this level of "security". If someone is determined and depraved enough to use a child as a living bomb and they really want to kill a bunch of people, there isn't going to be much you can do to stop them. Even if there was perfect security at the airport, the hypothetical psychopath could find plenty of other poorly secured large groups of people to attack. The solution isn't to add ridiculous levels of security anywhere that there are lots of people, but to accept the fact that some (very VERY small minority of) people are psychopaths and not allow that to change the way that we live. Patting down little girls is not going to make us appreciably safer. As such, there is no place for it in our society.

    423. Re:Of course. by b0bby · · Score: 1

      Not nearly as huge a stretch as comparing an expected, routine patdown at an airport to a random assault on the street.

    424. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why stop there. Spread them out around cities, so there's no significant conglomeration of people. Then.. just attack another place where they gather... rinse and repeat.

    425. Re:Of course. by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      False dichotomy: you get molested at the gate, and that does absolutely nothing to reduce your chances of dying in a terrorist attack.

      If I'm going to die due to terrorism, I'd rather not have my last hour of life involve being yelled at for putting my arms down too soon, while going through a machine that is a $100k waste of my tax dollars.

    426. Re:Of course. by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Seriously, we'd see the true colors of this nation and the control the politicians and corporate overlords really hold if someone went berserk at a checkpoint trying to protect their child.

      No it wouldn't. And it hasn't. We've already had many instances of people taking a principled stand against the TSA at security checkpoints; nothing has changed. Tons of people in this very forum clearly equate every TSA employee as a low-life, child molesting, thieving goon, when most of them are just people who needed a job.

      Throwing a tantrum at a security checkpoint to make a statement against those mean ol' TSA agents is idiotic misplaced anger. For the most part, these guys are just doing their jobs. The people you need to engage are the ones making the decisions higher up.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    427. Re:Of course. by sycodon · · Score: 1

      The funny thing about No Child Left Behind is that we had to have a federal program to convince schools to do their damned job.

      More likely, the TSA people graduated before NCLB and were simply passed from one grade to another without learning anything.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    428. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The natural result of creating a government agency (TSA) to handle airport security. When can we end the TSA nightmare and go back to having actual human beings handle airport security instead of federal government employees?

    429. Re:Of course. by houghi · · Score: 1

      The couple of times the kids have had light patdowns, I didn't see it as molestation;

      They are raping your rights as a human being and you see no problems in that? That is your problem right there.

      A patdown IS a molestation. Not a physical one, but much worse. Much much worse.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    430. Re:Of course. by Caratted · · Score: 1

      So it's not really a stretch to think that someone would be depraved enough to ... sacrifice their mother in law.

      This is definitely not a stretch, given /.'s consensus on inlaws.

    431. Re:Of course. by toriver · · Score: 1

      But they need to blow it up somewhere with some population density, and planes spend 90% of the time over sparsely populated areas... entering the cockpit is near impossible these days.

    432. Re:Of course. by PortHaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a daddy, no one touches my little girls there except a doctor for medical reason.

      IF they do, they wind up on floor unconscious.

      And if you feel it's okay for TSA to do such pat downs, how about teachers? neighbors? strangers? how about I pat down your wife....nice.

      If it's not okay for citizens, it's not okay for the government who derives their power from the citizens.

    433. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the color of terrorized weaklings.

      Yellow?

    434. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no objective proof that the radiation from the TSA machines is what they say it is anytime after initial manufacture. The TSA have taken the position that their x-ray-emitting machines don't have to be tested on an ongoing basis; that they are perfect, and won't become misconfigured or damaged, and that if such an impossible condition were to come to pass, they would somehow notice (e.g. they'd smell the extra x-rays in the air).

      The TSA has repeatedly failed to notice when their metal detectors aren't even switched on (despite their having a "machine is turned on and a person is walking through it now" blinking light - http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-51074980.html). How they will notice that an x-ray machine is out of whack is beyond comprehension.

      I'm concerned the first signs will be when 10% of people who departed that airport after a certain date start dying of acute radiation burns. Being infected with Ebola would actually be a less painful way to die. (Or crashing in a plane or car accident - both far quicker and less painful by comparison.)

      So to say that on an 18-hour flight a passenger will receive the equivalent of 360 scans of radiation - yes, that's if the machines are working properly. But why are we to trust those machines, without any verification? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/health/24radiation.html?pagewanted=all

    435. Re:Of course. by Prune · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This point is even more important than it seems at first glance. Evolutionarily, we are optimized to live in small groups (tribes) and there would tend to be a closer (in time) shared genetic ancestry among the members of a tribe than those in other tribes. Inter-tribe interaction is naturally less personable and more utilitarian/competitive/often confrontational. Civilization only came about recently on evolutionary terms, and not long enough ago for biological adaptation to have made us naturally fit in the current social environment where you interact with strangers and non-strangers but still people with whom you have no personal relation. Instinctually, we still care most for those in our group, but this is a poor fit in a world where people's actions can affect the lives of many others who have no personal connection to them. This is an artificial environment for the human animal, a sort of a zoo, and it's a constant battle between instinct and social engineering.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    436. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation needed. TSA scanning equipment is exempt from CDRH review at the FDA. Your microwave oven is not. How do we know these devices are emitting a safe level of milliseiverts of ionizing radiation if no one is holding them to account?

    437. Re:Of course. by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      1. Not all rights are in the constitution. (The bill of rights is a /subset/ of our rights.)
      2. We do have a right to free travel within the US and this has been affirmed. (Free as in freedom, not beer.)
      3. Modern society assumes air travel. (For example, if you have a job interview in another state that would be a five-day's non-stop drive each way.)

      Thus, as a we do actually have a right to air travel.

    438. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, how many millions of people have died from cancer obtained from unknown sources.

      My dad died of cancer less then a month after it was detected. It's also been proven that several of these machines were emitting far more radiation then they were designed, and "cancer clusters" have popped up around TSA agents stationed around the things. Personally, walking PAST the damn things makes me uneasy. They are not properly tested, and are run by imbeciles. The calibration and testing normally needed for radiation dosing medical equipment is very carefully scrutinized. The assholes who built these radiation dosing scanners got around those requirements by saying they aren't medical devices. There aren't any regulations that say how much radiation these can emit since they are no longer medical devices.

      You want more people to get scanned by these things? No, thank you. I'll take my pat down. Don't like the extra delays? Frankly, I don't fucking care. Deal with it. At least I know the sun is emitting a (relatively constant) level of radiation, filtered by our planets radiation screen. I have no guarantees that the contractor who built the radiation doser at the cheapest price possible built the fucking thing properly, and there's no way I'll ever know until years, possibly decades later that they fucked up. No way I'll ever prove it either.

      Now do you get why people are so concerned? You go right ahead and keep burying your head in the sand, though.

    439. Re:Of course. by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      I really hope you are not an American citizen.
      We really do not need more self absorbed shitheads that stand by and watch as their freedoms are torn from them and their neighbors.
      I thank God that the real men and women that faced these decisions early in this countries history thought differently than you did.

      Meanwhile, you're bravely changing the system by posting to Slashdot. If only you had been in that airport, you could have bravely changed the system there by grumbling in line about how stupid it was to pat down a 4 year old.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    440. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh, so your true colors show. You're a fucking racist.

    441. Re:Of course. by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      People on the ground who want to be safe from flying objects should be prepared to shoot those objects down.

    442. Re:Of course. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      I think the pat downs are insane and disrespectful and completely worthless, but no jury would accept that they are equivalent to rape or physical harm [...]

      Put me on that jury, and I will accept exactly that. Touching someone in their "private" area uninvited is definitely close to rape, and is physical harm. I agree with the rest of what you wrote.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    443. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, because I have so many options to get back to the mainland taking the bus or boat from Hawaii. I don't disagree with what you're saying, but there are some of us who have no other options but to fly. Yeah, you get plenty of radiation up in the sky, but I'd really rather not add on to that every time I visit home.

    444. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mess that your country has put themselves is a long history... The are many politicians that you have that have actually said many of these things, but they have just been ignored... Just to make this story a bit short i just bring up a few points that, i hope, most people know about..

      It all started after the second world war when Israel was created... They where given a plot of land in a place that the Arabic countries consider as a "holy place".....

      Then the Taliban was trained and given weapons by the CIA when the last big "enemy" existed.. The scary "Russian communists"... You even blacklisted people just for thinking communism was a good way to go.. What happened to free thought and democratic values?
      During this time bases where built up during the whole world

      After this USA went into Irak the first time after Saddam invaded Kuwait..... Sure, this was probably justified, but it still added to the whole mess..

      Then the USA, in a very tragic incident, looses around 5000 people in the 9/11 incident. This then triggers the US to invade Irak due to the claim that there are WMD's there.. Even when the intelligence sector flags that there is probably not anything there (just watch some documentaries about this and you will see what was actually happening.. They where looking for a cause to invade Irak.)

      Then the USA invades Pakistan to try and find Usama Bin Laden, but to no avail for many years... He is finally found and killed during the raid and then his body is then dumped at sea..

      And together with all this you go in to countries, ignoring local laws, and kidnap people. Create a place like Guantanamo where you place people, without trial or the possibility to appeal, without any or very weak evidence..

      So... The biggest reason WHY all this is happening to your country.. You are constantly meddling in other countries affairs, going past the UN and ignoring what they say.. Ie acting like the world police... The president did not even have permission from congress in your own country to start the second war against Irak...

      So until your country manages to vote someone a bit more clever into office i don't think any of this will stop and all that will be happening are just more and more removal of your freedoms until you don't have any left, all in the name of security against the terrorists...

      25 years ago i thought i might move there because it was quite nice... Now i would not move there under any circumstance..

    445. Re:Of course. by Wovel · · Score: 1

      I agree it is insane. I am not sure how stupid you would have to be to try and take a 4 year old off to a screening room without a parent or guardian. I do know there is no amount of training that can overcome this level of stupidity. Perhaps this agency needs higher standards. Perhaps a few of these "agents" need to be charged with attempted kidnapping.

    446. Re:Of course. by Cow+Jones · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are two problems leading to situations like this, firstly the TSA screeners have little more then a high-school diploma and a weeks training, because of this, management, in true government from, treats them like idiots.

      To be frank, some of the staff at US airports appear to have an IQ barely above imbecility. I've been in the US four times, and nowhere else have I seen such unfriendly, unhelpful, and downright hostile personnel than at the airports. A man whose only job appeared to be holding a sign pointing to a gate refused to show us the way to the toilets. Another man went through our bags before we boarded and found the remains of a coconut which we'd intended to eat on the plane; he turned to me (I was 12 at the time), said "you must be a real idiot" and threw it in the garbage. If people like that are employed by the TSA, I'm hardly shocked that situations like the one with the little girl make the news every few weeks. If those dimwits don't know how to properly interact with passengers, put them in a position where they don't have to, or don't hire them.

      Last year, we did a trip around Iceland. Before our return flight, when we waited at the security check, we found that we still had some 2 liter bottles of lemonade in our bags. So we started chugging away (don't like to waste food), and a security guy came up to us. He told us to relax and take the bottles on the plane. "This is Reykjavik, not New York. Have a nice flight."

      --

      Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
    447. Re:Of course. by holmstar · · Score: 1

      I disagree. The TSA provides a valuable service..it's just that they have gone too far.

      I have no problem with post 9/11 security measures at the airport

      Wait... so you have no problem with the post 9/11 TSA security measures, but you think that they've gone too far...

      Do you not notice the contradiction in your own statements? Are you sure that you have no problem with the TSA? Seems like some cognitive dissonance might be happening here.

    448. Re:Of course. by holmstar · · Score: 1

      Well, how many incidents were there before the TSA took over security from the airports. You do remember that airports once handled their own security, right? Are you sure that the TSA is doing a better job?

    449. Re:Of course. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Good luck with that in front of a constitutional judge. You will lose.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    450. Re:Of course. by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      No it wouldn't. And it hasn't. We've already had many instances of people taking a principled stand against the TSA at security checkpoints; nothing has changed. Tons of people in this very forum clearly equate every TSA employee as a low-life, child molesting, thieving goon, when most of them are just people who needed a job.

      Throwing a tantrum at a security checkpoint to make a statement against those mean ol' TSA agents is idiotic misplaced anger. For the most part, these guys are just doing their jobs. The people you need to engage are the ones making the decisions higher up.

      People make a conscious decision to perform a specific job. Whether your profession is telemarketer, TSA agent or drug dealer it is something you elect to do.

      With regards to it not mattering or anger being misplaced...the guy who showed up at the checkpoint naked received NATIONAL attention. The more TSA is reported about or heard about in mass media increases critical mass necessary to effect change. The fact that you hear about these things means they do matter and they do effect public opinion which ultimatly effects voter behavior.

      Higher churn at TSA means more resources wasted and poorer outcomes. When the only people left who want to be TSA agents are narcissists and pedos TSA will will collapse on its own. It is already well on its way by the looks of things.

      Any and all non-violent methods of bringing down the current TSA I am for. I don't much care who in the chain of command is negativly effected by it.

    451. Re:Of course. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Tyrants use media to brainwash and spread propaganda so we should throw out or TVs and unplug the internet.

      Many of us are witness to what the mainstream media has been doing and continues to do regarding the Ron Paul campaign. He just won at least half the delegates in both Iowa and Missouri; the only way I know about this is from reading the comments in "hit piece" articles about Ron Paul's "failing campaign".

      During these past few months, my relationship with the television has been changing as well. I'm no longer really interested in the stories that it has to tell me; reality is much more interesting (like that Chinese curse).

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    452. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awesome. Then your girl can grow up in foster care getting molested while you serve a life sentence in prison. That's smart thinking man.

    453. Re:Of course. by hierophanta · · Score: 1

      never the desired outcome of any fighting body other than an extremist group.

      care to explain Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

    454. Re:Of course. by ZackZero · · Score: 1

      Okay, that was more coherent, but there are still problems with what you're claiming here. Firstly, we never invaded Pakistan; there were drone operations that were done with (and some without) Pakistan's knowledge, as well as the operation that ultimately led to bin Laden's death (again, aspects of Pakistan's government did know.) You're confusing Pakistan with Afghanistan, which I tried to explain in the post you largely ignored. The war in Iraq was a different matter, which occurred in 2003, and was more related to Iraq's refusal to allow proper inspections by international (read: UN-sponsored) bodies such as the IAEA. No weapons of mass destruction were found; I do concede that point. However, I wish to remind you that artillery shells designed specifically for chemical-agent dispersal (capable of delivering weaponized chemical and biological agents similar to the kinds used by Saddam Hussein's military against the northern Kurds) were recovered. Lacking the weapons, they still maintained stockpiles of the means of delivery. Simple logic suggests that they wouldn't keep such means unless they were still somehow involved in production or research into chemical or biological agents. Acting like the world's police? Tell me, would you rather we sat back and did nothing, allowed terrorist organizations to continue operations unabated when it was known and/or highly likely that they were planning further attacks? The events of 11 September 2001 were, as I stated, an atrocity and an act of war. A response should have been expected for what was done that day. And one last thing... the subject of Israel (or Palestine, or whatever everyone wants to call it this week) is sore, because it's in the holy land of every Abrahamic religion, not just Islam.

    455. Re:Of course. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      So when this stuff started become standard operating procedure I decided to never again travel to the USA, and that has worked out pretty well. No conferences, no family holidays, no business trips, no standing in line while a jackbooted rentacop yells "PAPERS!" in my face.

      "Papers" is about controlling who can go where. This is obviously very bad.

      Frisking is about discovering contraband. Frisking everyone does not bother me. I don't really care if I get frisked entering a mall or a bar... just have a qualified professional do it.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    456. Re:Of course. by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      All that's needed for a Tranny to suck seed is for good men to do nothing...

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    457. Re:Of course. by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If fake cops don't finger-fuck our babies, then the terrorists win.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    458. Re:Of course. by ZackZero · · Score: 2

      Read: "never the desired outcome" - it was that or OVERLORD, which would've resulted in a much larger loss of human life on both sides at its beginning, and possibly even more in terms of a protracted land-war against Japanese forces. It was, unfortunately, less costly in terms of human lives to use the atomic bomb on those two cities. Still doesn't mean it was the desired outcome.

    459. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody said you have to be brown and Muslim, just being Muslim is enough to be contemptible.

    460. Re:Of course. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      It's a huge stretch to compare a doctor who spent years in medical school training to diagnose and treat medical problems with airport security guards.

      It's the education that separates what happens in a doctor's office from random things on the street? I thought it was informed consent and context.

      You go try screening young women for breast cancer on the street. Let me know how that works out for you if you can get onto slashdot from jail.

      I assume you're implying without their consent. It would be just as bad as me as for a doctor without their consent. Of course, the doctor could offer to perform a legitimate service that I could not (real medical care), but as long as I made it clear it was role-play and not a legit offer of services I cannot imagine any legal issue. Of course, there may be public indecency rules, but those apply regardless of medical degree.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    461. Re:Of course. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Currently no mod points; I read the parent because of your post, and am glad that I did, so I'm echoing the sentiment.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    462. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Israeli security uses racism which sounds like a better system than what we're using.

      Look like a terrorist? Get a pat down. Look like a four yr old blonde blue eyed girl hugging grandma? No pat down

      Not always. A white Catholic pregnant Irishwoman doesn't fit anyone's terrorist profile, and yet there was a bomb in her luggage.

    463. Re:Of course. by robot256 · · Score: 1

      Now if this was random stopping of people on the public streets, we would have something to talk about.

      Well then let's talk about it:

      "Congress will soon be signing a bill allowing additional funding for a large expansion of TSA checkpoints soon. Yes, checkpoints. No longer are the TSA relegated to the lowly airport, as 25 teams have been roving the country side conducting highway checkpoints, setting up shop at bus terminals, sporting events, and even a high school prom. Congress apparently feels as though you aren’t being reminded on a daily basis that you live in an ever-increasing police state, so they want to add twelve more “Viper Teams” to the roster." -- KEVIN HAYDEN – TRUTHISTREASON.NET

    464. Re:Of course. by Livius · · Score: 1

      Quite right. The function of the TSA is not to prevent terrorism or improve security, it is to Look Like they Are Doing Something(tm). Child molestation ensures that no-one forgets that the TSA is there.

    465. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Second amendment still applies today, just as it always has. Just a fraction of the 70 million armed Americans FAR out number the number of agents or soldiers that would continue to be loyal to the US Government over their fellow Americans. There are only so many of us that can be killed by the drones before Washington ceases to becomes powerless or otherwise ceases to exist.

    466. Re:Of course. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Too bad she wasn't a biter.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    467. Re:Of course. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Maybe you aren't, but I am. I have been known to toss someone down a flight a stairs and beat them bloody. This happened to one of my sister's more dodgy boy friends who thought it would be fun to beat a 100 pound girl.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    468. Re:Of course. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Sure, right here. Especially if you consider palestine their own nation.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    469. Re:Of course. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Stopping people on the public streets is a different topic to be discussed, and i do agree its in violation of the 4th amendment.

      A privately owned bus terminal or sporting event, not so much. Schools? Depends on the school's funding sources.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    470. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't even count the number of times this has been said. It does matter that the "normal operating" level produced by these machines are so low. If malfunctioning they can produce much much much higher levels. These are not maintained by technicians/hospitals which actually care that they work safely. They are maintained by a group of people are more than willing to SEXUALLY MOLEST a child, and get away with it! What the f&#* do they care about your long term health.

    471. Re:Of course. by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

      "Those of us who will still fly will appreciate the extra room on the planes and the lower fares."

      Care to elaborate on the lower fares? Fewer customers means lower fares?

      "If all the cancer paranoia were true, we'd all have cancer by age 10!"

      http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Sites-Types/childhood

      From the article:
      "High levels of ionizing radiation from accidents or from radiotherapy have been linked with increased risk of some childhood cancers."

      I guess that since the TSA are intentionally irradiating children, and not doing so by accident or by providing radiotherapy, this might not apply.

    472. Re:Of course. by ktappe · · Score: 1

      Here's the thing: No one's saying small children should be excluded from screening.

      I am.

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    473. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if we succumb to racism, we win? Maybe you meant to use the word 'profiling' instead.

    474. Re:Of course. by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Until I can afford to charter private flights I will not be flying with my family.
      Fortunately, the security theater has made it so expensive that you can't afford to fly with your family unless you are extremely wealthy anyway.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    475. Re:Of course. by ChatHuant · · Score: 1

      Mark me troll and flamebait all you want

      How about I simply mark you uninformed? Profiling (racial or otherwise) shouldn't be used, not because it's racist (though that doesn't help), but because it doesn't work. See for example what Bruce Schneier says here or here. And if you don't want to take the time to dig through those blogs here are a couple of short quotes:

      The trick [for profiling to be effective] is to make sure perceptions of risk match the actual risks. If those responsible for security profile based on superstition and wrong-headed intuition, or by blindly following a computerized profiling system, profiling won't work at all. And even worse, it actually can reduce security by blinding people to the real threats. Institutionalized profiling can ossify a mind, and a person's mind is the most important security countermeasure we have.

      Whenever you design a security system with two ways through -- an easy way and a hard way -- you invite the attacker to take the easy way. Profile for young Arab males, and you'll get terrorists that are old non-Arab females.

    476. Re:Of course. by Cederic · · Score: 2

      What's wrong with proportionate response? Someone assaults your daughter, have them arrested and prosecuted.

      Is that so hard?

    477. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Those of us who will still fly will appreciate the extra room on the planes and the lower fares."

      Probably not, as volume decreases, individual seat prices rise.

    478. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that's not proportional response. Proportional response is an eye for an eye. You assault my daughter, I assault you (or your daughter/child).

    479. Re:Of course. by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      Do you have a link to either of those groups turning kids into suicide bombers?
      Specifically suicide bomber outside of the immediate threat of their nation?

      no? didn't think so.

      Because if it never happened before, it can never happen in the future, right?

      Look, it's seem pretty obvious that this situation was handled very poorly. However, exempting certain groups from screening doesn't make much sense. Invasive pat-downs of toddlers make as much sense as letting everyone through without even a scan. In this case the obvious answer was to make the child go through the metal detector again.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    480. Re:Of course. by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      Get your tits off my tank!

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    481. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the doctor, there's an expectation that despite all of the poking and prodding, and general personal discomfort, he's ultimately there to help the patient. What is the expectation for TSA security droids again?

    482. Re:Of course. by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      TSA finds far more cash and drugs than they do guns and bombs--and that's what they're really looking for. Cash they can seize (the booty funds "overhead," leaving more money from taxpayers to spend on boondoggle body scanner devices) is the name of the game. Some police agencies get vast swath of their funding from such seizure activities.

      Citation needed. I'm well aware of the problems with seizure laws being abused by police, but I'm unaware of these laws applying to the TSA. Link please.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    483. Re:Of course. by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      TSA scanning equipment is exempt from CDRH review at the FDA. Your microwave oven is not.

      Funny story that. Your microwave oven emits 0 nanosieverts.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    484. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has been done before, I'm thinking concentration camps or death camps. 21st Century US 1930s Nazi Germany spot the difference!

    485. Re:Of course. by hierophanta · · Score: 1

      there is no difference between the attacks other than how you rationalize the motives.

    486. Re:Of course. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      >Well, not exactly what you were asking for, but Hindawi packed the bomb into the carry-on bag of his pregnant Irish fiancee [wikipedia.org].

      Frisking a 4 year old would not have revealed the bomb in the bag. A standard X-ray of the carry on bag would be more effective against this particular scenario.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    487. Re:Of course. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      >Israeli security suspects everyone (to different degrees). It's part of the reason they are successful at airline security, and stopped the Hindawi bombing.

      In my experience traveling to and from Israel, the airport security not only is obviously more secure, it is also a lot less hassle than the security in Europe and America.

      When they question you and inspect your bags, it takes 1-5 minutes, which is a lot less than waiting in line in a US airport.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    488. Re:Of course. by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      There's nothing wrong with going ahead and boarding your plane calmly and the afterwards, perhaps after your return, going to the police office and filing charges of "reckless endangerment of a child" against the TSA agents who let the child wander off alone.
      For that matter, more bearing on this case, there is no reason not to file kidnapping and lewd acts with a minor against the TSA agent that took the child into a separate room. It probably won't stick, but just having an accusation like that on the record would be a black mark against them.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    489. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you realize those talking points have been debunked time and time again. Surely, someone as astute and "in the know" as you realizes that the radiation you receive on a flight is from a range of spectrums and diffused across your entire body, whereas the radiation you get from the TSA's pervert machine (which is also uncalibrated) is a focused beam of ionizing radiation (proven to cause cancer) that targets the first few mm of your skin. Surely you realize the TSA basically declared these things safe on their own without independent testing from an outside organization, and that they're less effective at actually detecting contraband than conventional metal detectors... right?

    490. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those two events killed a lot of innocent people; people that did not deserve to suffer as they did. That being said, until I read the book "Flyboys" by Bradley, I never really understood the military cult that ran Japan, whose influence was woven into their society. My wife bought me the book for Christmas (I'm a pilot) thinking it focused on aviation during the Pacific Campaign. While it did touch on the subject, it covered in more detail the thinking and behavior of the Japanese military cult- and the author interviewed a fair number of ex Japanese soldiers who un-apologetically gave first hand accounts of what happened.... think raping the women of an Asian village, killing them, and then eating them, after first killing the men and children in front of them. Repeat this for many other villages. This cult's defense of the Japanese mainland from invasion would have caused many, many more civilian casualties than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    491. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a special law saying you can't level charges against a TSA agent.

      Kicking their ass is the only option left.

    492. Re:Of course. by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Yeah, right. How many letters did they write and what other methods did they try to correct whatever perceived transgression had occurred before they decided to kill thousands of uninvolved civilians?

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    493. Re:Of course. by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      GP is using the colloquial form of "terrorist" which means "Muslim".

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    494. Re:Of course. by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      I believe I once read that lung cancer in Wisconsin annually kills about as many American citizens (2940 in the year 2010) than terrorists have in the past 12 years (2996 during the 9/11 attacks)

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    495. Re:Of course. by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Instead, find a candidate that will represent your views on this and work towards getting this person elected

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, wow *wipes tears from face*, haha, you truly have no understanding how the US political system works. We don't get to pick candidates - the Republican and Democrat parties pick their choices for our next tyrant and we only get the option of picking who we think will use the most lube while ass raping us. There is no other option because the system is rigged in conjuncture with the media to ensure that no third party candidate will ever get a snowballs chance in hell of winning.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    496. Re:Of course. by gstrickler · · Score: 1

      It's not about the radiation. It's about unnecessary radiation. The TSA x-ray scanners are completely ineffective. They're trivially easy to defeat, and that's if the operator is actually paying attention. If the operator isn't paying attention, then they're simply dangerous. They're operated by people who aren't trained in radiation safety, are prohibited from wearing a dosimeter, and they're tested and calibrated by TSA, who has been found to have miscalibrated a number of machines. And, your 60x/360x figures are way off, by about a factor of 10, try 2x-5x for a 2-3 hr flight IF the machines are properly calibrated.

      TSA and GAO estimates 3-10 additional cancer deaths per year in the US due to the use of the scanners.

      And fewer people flying will not reduce your airfare, planes are not at capacity, so it will increase fares and/or decrease frequency of service.

      Also, "DON'T FLY" is a cop opt. 49 USC 40103(a)(2) states:

      (2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for handicapped individuals.

      So, people have a right to travel by air, and they have the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution states:

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      In the US, we have rights, and some of use demand that those rights not be infringed. You're welcome to give up your rights, but you can not give away mine. So, you can take you attitude to another country and be groped all you want.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    497. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you really so retarded as to think that less passengers per flight will mean LOWER fares? You might wanna get a ticket out of UnicornFairyFart-Land ASAP.....wow....just wow.

    498. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which still fall somewhere. So that is not a surefire solution either.

    499. Re:Of course. by doesnothingwell · · Score: 1

      The comment is "not even wrong" the child and or designated guardian are a unit. The child and guardian should be forced to stay together throughout security, procedural fail. WTF do they pay these morons (TSA admins) for?

      --
      They can have my command prompt when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
    500. Re:Of course. by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      If you are very dense, then maybe that's the only interpretation. Otherwise you'd consider the context in which the yelling occurred - I won't quote that yet again - and that this is from a complete stranger. Yes, what these people did to that child was child abuse, including the yelling at a child which was already frightened by these assholes. No that's not comparable to a parent yelling because they lost patience, and I sincerely hope you are the only person on slashdot which needs that explicitly explained.

    501. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and the lower fares

      Fewer people paying for a plane's fuel, staff, landing fees, maintenance will make air travel cheaper? No. The cost per passenger will rise and you will pay more.

      A service industry, like air travel, depends on getting as many bums on seats as possible.

    502. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mark me troll and flamebait all you want, but every time the TSA pat downs a little blonde girl the terrorist win again.

      There are as many terrorists among Muslim Americans as there are serial killers among Caucasian Americans. I have yet to hear anyone call for screening white people, just in case they have a girl's dismembered corpse in their trunk. Nevermind Timothy McVeigh, Eric Robert Rudolph, or Ted Kaczynski.

    503. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Israeli security uses racism which sounds like a better system than what we're using.

      Israel doesn't use racism. It uses intelligence, something the TSA completely lacks.

      Ben Gurion Airport security personnel have long faced accusations of racial profiling. Critics argue that many more Arab people are questioned than other ethnic groups. Ron denies the profiling charge. “Speaking from a security point of view, it would be professionally stupid to divert attention from non-Arab people,” he says. “For example, the worst attack on Ben Gurion was carried out by Japanese in 1972. If we focus on ethnic groups, we will miss what the enemy already understands: using a non-Arab person to carry out an attack might succeed.”

      Grandma wants to stick a bomb on a 4 year-old? She better hope she doesn't start getting nervous the moment they turn onto the road heading to the parking lot. By the time they get to the scanners, the Israelis have already determined whether grandma needs the special glove treatment. They don't need to pat down the kid.

    504. Re:Of course. by ZackZero · · Score: 2

      I'd argue further, but you've already convinced yourself otherwise. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rationally planned and ethically sound (in at least one application of ethical theory; it is not ethically sound universally), but not a universally moral choice either. The same may - and I mean this particularly - be said about the 11 September attacks, but they can also be argued to have been universally immoral or amoral, given the event as a whole and how it was carried out. Also distinguishing the two is this point: the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were conducted specifically to force the war to end, whereas 11 September's events were purely provocative in nature. The reason for the bombings was simple: the war had to be ended, and it was the best course of action at the time (despite the inability to avoid civilian casualty.) The reason for 11 September, even simpler: they wanted many to die, and for those who were left to be driven into fear.

    505. Re:Of course. by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      So you would kill someone for searching your daughter? Wow.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    506. Re:Of course. by ZackZero · · Score: 2

      And excuse me, correcting an error. The operation in planning was DOWNFALL, not OVERLORD. My mistake.

    507. Re:Of course. by hherb · · Score: 1

      That's not what I said. What I said is individual heroics only work out in movies. In real world, in such situations, they just beat you up and throw you into jail if you as much as lift your arm to protect your child from the TSA ogres.
      Abuse of power must be resisted whenever it rears it's ugly head, but in an organized way.

    508. Re:Of course. by hherb · · Score: 1

      I guess this is because there is no modding option of "fact"

    509. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About the weapons of mass destruction.. The USA also has stockpiles of old biological weapons... Do you think that for example Russia, if they had the resources to do it, should be allowed to invade your country because you have that?

      I would prefer that USA do not meddle in the affairs of other countries or invade other countries... Even if that country might harbor terrorists... It's up to the UN to handle this part. Arabic countries are part of the UN and they will feel that their voices are heard instead of a individualistic country of mostly christians invading their country... Doing it this way will also prevent a backlash of anger against your country... The way the rest of the world see these acts are a way for your country to secure a new source for oil and money, not 'exporting freedom' as i think i recall someone high up said...

      Allowing any specific country to play the role of world-police is the perfect recipe for creating terrorists and fundamentalists that does awful acts.. Allowing all countries to be a part of the decision will make it more of a general, non-religionistic (if that now is a word), way.to prevent rouge countries to harm others....

    510. Re:Of course. by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Mark me troll and flamebait all you want, but every time the TSA pat downs a little blonde girl the terrorist win again.

      There are as many terrorists among Muslim Americans as there are serial killers among Caucasian Americans. I have yet to hear anyone call for screening white people, just in case they have a girl's dismembered corpse in their trunk. Nevermind Timothy McVeigh, Eric Robert Rudolph, or Ted Kaczynski.

      Because unless we put the TSA in everyone's house it is impossible to stop someone from mailing a bomb or driving their van full of explosive fertilizer to a govt building.

      Besides all of the caucasian american serial killers combined don't equal the 3,000 killed in 9/11 using a few airplanes so the screenings need to be done at airports

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    511. Re:Of course. by ZackZero · · Score: 1

      In an ideal situation, I'd agree with you. Your points do have merit. However, I (for one) do not believe that the United Nations has much in the way of credibility with regard to its handling of the matter of terrorism, and the equally important matter of nations that support such through financing or armament. I'll step back from the argument on that note.

    512. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... find a candidate that will represent your views

      Most people can't afford a candidate to represent them. So the first step will be to create a collective of like-minded individuals (a PAC) to find a suitable candidate.

      ... getting this person elected

      It's not enough to be for something. There will be plenty of people against your candidate. People who will have more money or control of the newspapers and radio. So the second step will be a year-long education of the populace on why your candidate is important.

      Finding people to work together on the minority issues: Banning homosexuals or abortion; is easy. Getting them to agree on a wide-spread social change is difficult. See the republican party, which espouses a social policy of welfare for the rich, along with 10 other social policies, depending on the candidate.

      ... where effective movements start ...

      There are three types of movements: Those that (1) create a political presence, such as a candidate for election and work within the law, and (2) those which use civil disobedience to magnify the social and individual cost of the offensive law, and (3) those who use very expensive guns to kill the current leaders. In all cases, a minority movement will not have the leverage to effect change.

    513. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is always this. a Duffle-bag on wheels.
      http://www.amazon.com/McBrine-Large-Duffle-Bag-Wheels-Orange/dp/B0041JJSEA/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1335479150&sr=8-10

    514. Re:Of course. by Dishevel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Their job is theater.
      The TSA has never once prevented an attack. Not once.
      What they were created for can never again happen in our skies.
      They are an agency created from a knee jerk reaction by scared cows, that is now looking to ever expand its power like all other governmental agencies.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    515. Re:Of course. by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      If you are so scared of radiation, DON'T FLY!

      If you are so scared of terrorists that you're willing to give up your privacy and your presumption of innocence, then DON'T FLY!

      Seriously. The rest of us rational people will appreciate the return of dignity and professionalism to travel. We'll appreciate the reduction in airfares associated with not having to pay for the equipment, renovations, and manpower required by the theater your paranoia requires. We'll appreciate the reduction in highway traffic and increase in scheduled flights as people again choose the convenience of air over the hazards of driving. Or do you think that every major airline in the US has declared bankruptcy at least once since 2001 because people love the experience of flying so much more than in the 1990s?

    516. Re:Of course. by default+luser · · Score: 1

      Go for the gold...

      Go for the gold...

      Go for the ...aww, he missed!

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

    517. Re:Of course. by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Partial quotes are an awesome tool of the weak.
      Read my whole post.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    518. Re:Of course. by CptNerd · · Score: 1

      Nice theory, except there are so many holes in airport "security" now that aren't being exploited, it makes your theory wildly overblown. The sole intent and purpose of the TSA is to give us reason to fear each other, because if we are too afraid to count on our fellow Americans, then we have no choice but to trust the nearest uniformed "agent" of our Benevolent Father Government. And do exactly what they say, no questions or arguments or disagreement allowed. Constitutional freedoms void where prohibited by law.

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
    519. Re:Of course. by buybuydandavis · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, that would be "American is the only language worth speaking", Frenchy.

    520. Re:Of course. by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      Funny but I can't remember a single example of someone taking over an aircraft with box cutters.
      [I'm speaking from August 2001]

      Your memory is poor. The lone All Nippon 61 hijacker used an 8" kitchen knife in July 1999. Not quite a box cutter, but 5 guys with 4" razor blades are a lot more threatening than one guy with a kitchen knife.

      Funny but I can't remember a single example of someone trying to take over an aircraft with their underwear full of explosives.

      By far, the most common pre-9/11 hijacking weapon is "claim of explosives," usually false. That's right: pre-9/11, it was as easy to hijack a plane as it is to rob a bank. You want to rob a bank, you go up to the teller with a note demanding money, and they will always give it to you. Pre-9/11, you want to hijack a plane, you tell them you have a bomb, and they will take you where ever you want. You may not get out of the bank/plane at the end, but company policy said it's just not worth risking lives over a little money or inconvenience. Now, of course, no one will have any of that, as has been demonstrated by passengers on the shoe-bomber, underpants-bomber, and crazy-pilot. Pre-TSA security, combined with locked cockpit doors and corporate policies forbidding appeasement, are all we need to prevent another 9/11

    521. Re:Of course. by Cute+Fuzzy+Bunny · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You've foolishly fallen for the idea that this has anything to do at all with security. It got votes when it went in, and it costs a gazillion dollars of our money that the government gets to pay its friends who do the security work. Same with prisons. Same with just about everything. We're being fleeced by parasites who don't care if they kill the host.

    522. Re:Of course. by Cute+Fuzzy+Bunny · · Score: 1

      You're welcome to pat down my wife. Just wash your hands afterwards...

    523. Re:Of course. by Cute+Fuzzy+Bunny · · Score: 1

      Eh, we just put the terrorists in charge of airport security.

    524. Re:Of course. by Cute+Fuzzy+Bunny · · Score: 1

      Ah come on. Groping children is way more interesting than worrying about getting called out for profiling and racism. The thing is, it hurts when large heavily bearded men hit you. Little girls, not so much. I dont think they even have a washington lobby, do they?

    525. Re:Of course. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It depends on your definition of "child". Caucasus Islamists mainly use widowed women who were married to "shahids", but some of those can be 16-17 years old.

      That said, I haven't ever heard of them using real kids specifically as suicide bombers. There were reports of kids coming close to soldiers in a checkpoint (knowing they wouldn't be shot) and then lobbing a grenade at them and running away, but that was on the ground in Chechnya itself, and during active warfare.

    526. Re:Of course. by Cederic · · Score: 2

      I accept that entirely. I just don't see it as justification for testerone fueled knee-jerk rage reactions in response.

    527. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they have this already, its called buy your own Airplane and fly it. Skip the lines and the hassle and bring whatever you want on board.

    528. Re:Of course. by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      So then. For security theater they can take your daughter into another room without her parents and physically pat her down?
      You are ok with this?
      Or are your previous comments full of shit?

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    529. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back when there was the whole mess with Hurricane Katrina, everyone wanted the higher ups in government to have more responsibility and accountability when disasters happened.

      But the REAL answer is that the folks on the front lines during a disaster need to be given the authority to do what needs to be done.

      Then you get local law enforcement shooting a group unarmed refugees trying to cross a bridge away from New Orleans.

    530. Re:Of course. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      as an outsider it only gives the impression that the US is full of terrorists and everywhere else is safe

      The US is full of terrorists. They're called the "TSA".

    531. Re:Of course. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      That goes along with the general attitude of regular Americans: at least half of them are flaming assholes, so it makes perfect sense that their security forces would be aggressive. Regular, everyday Americans are aggressive too.

    532. Re:Of course. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Interesting. You're raising a different argument entirely.

      You do realise that it's possible to object to that behaviour without fucking killing someone?

      That's the overreaction to which I responded, not the initial incident. Do try and get a sense of perspective here.

    533. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (If there are fewer people on planes, fares will go up, not down.)

    534. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nobody wants to bang your kid, frootloop.
      try to show some love in the Normal Way
      rather than your mad dog 'protection' of one
      of a 7 billion commodity.

      Little Stella ain't no big deal, plus she's
      probably wired just defective as you are.

    535. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Checkpoint-ception?

    536. Re:Of course. by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      To create fear amongst a population you need to make people feel vulnerable as they go about their daily lives. Blowing up a plane might make people feel unsafe when they travel, but it doesn't effect them for the rest of their lives.

      9/11 was successful because people in lower Manhattan were going about their normal everyday lives when the planes hit. The idea that you may not be safe in your daily routine is where the real fear come from. Another way to terrorise the population is to start a sniper killing spree such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks and make people frightened of being out in public.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    537. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, not exactly what you were asking for, but Hindawi packed the bomb into the carry-on bag of his pregnant Irish fiancee.

      So it's not really a stretch to think that someone would be depraved enough to hide a bomb on their little daughter and sacrifice their mother in law. Same for e.g. the neighbor's little daughter and her grandmother. Illustrates nicely why racial profiling doesn't work, either.

      Despite having a little daughter - if you have a TSA at all I can see why they might want to pat down a girl her age. However if they want to do that, it must be done in a humane way. Someone shouting at a little child in that situation needs to be fired and fined.

      You had to dig up a 30 year old story about a guy who was a known terrorist to begin with. This wasn't last week, and Hindawi wasn't a grandmother from Kansas City.

      You're seriously overreaching...

    538. Re:Of course. by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      So you think that if you object they will stop?

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    539. Re:Of course. by couchslug · · Score: 1

      It's an outrage.

      No child should be fondled without benefit of clergy.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    540. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet, they didn't turn into whining sniveling dogs, cowering to authority, handing over civil liberties for a hint of safety.

      Lol the Brits? They don't even have basic rights to free speech or to defend themselves in their own house from violent intruders!
      Nvm the fact if you point out that they are being over run by Sharia law loving hoodlums who hide behind religion to deprive people of basic human rights and even posting about it online can have you arrested over there and I think you should go move over there if you love it so much. Tell us how life in Londonistan works out for you...idiot

    541. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, I just turn the switch to the oven like the boss tells me. That's why I'm getting a promotion next year (provided the Allies don't beat us before Summer)
      I'm just doing my job and you can't really blame me if I win the European Baking Championships due to my hard work and effort.

    542. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kick their ass? No, I'd prefer to kick them where it kills them.

    543. Re:Of course. by webminer · · Score: 1

      So a 4 yr old brown skinned Indian/Pakistani/Middle eastern girl can be patted down?

    544. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a volunteer deckhand on a tall ship. If your little girl is somewhere she shouldn't be, and is in danger, I'm going to lay hands upon her and put her somewhere safer. If you then knock me out for it, the skipper will be very unhappy - with you.

      AC

    545. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only Muslims are terrorists. Tamil Tigers are not Muslims. Therefore, Tamil Tigers are not terrorists.

    546. Re:Of course. by dcollins · · Score: 1

      "I'm sure that's happened as well."

      [Citation needed.] The burden of proof is on you to show evidence for such a case.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    547. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot nerds pulling a Rambo on trained security personel.

      Bitch pah-lease!

    548. Re:Of course. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      No shit. I can promise you right now if anyone ever did that to my daughter they wouldn't be breathing for long after. TSA, cop, a judge, The Pope, The Queen, I don't really care who it is they would be dead before they hit the ground. Duress is applicable when it's your child being attacked and molested.

      So you'd rather spend the rest of your life in prison than have someone touch your clothed daughter, in public, with you able to see what is going on? Your reaction would only be appropriate in the case of defending her against an actual rapist or murderer.

      Being patted down by someone in law enforcement is only "being attacked and molested" in the wildest paranoid fantasies of someone with severe autism or similar condition.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    549. Re:Of course. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If fake cops don't finger-fuck our babies, then the terrorists win.

      If you can't tell the difference between a clothed physical touch and a body cavity search I wouldn't want to shake your hand.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    550. Re:Of course. by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Leave me alone, while I go and eat this Irish infant.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    551. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't get me wrong, I think it's all bs & I fly as little as possible these days, but a patdown is not an attack.

      Interesting comment. You fly as little as possible? During what appears to be an American depression?

      I wonder how badly this is affecting tourism. For a start, I won't set foot in America though I have the money time and inclination to do so.

      I wonder how much profit is being lost per year because Americans are choosing to fly less.

      A pity the USA has tied itself up in these knots as I was looking forward to seeing the Grand Canyon next time.

    552. Re:Of course. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      As a counter-anecdote, I have been on holiday to the US with my family and found the security somewhat tedious, but the stuff all incredibly polite and cheerful compared to the UK where I live.

      Sorry to transgress the unwritten slashdot law.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    553. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last year, we did a trip around Iceland. Before our return flight, when we waited at the security check, we found that we still had some 2 liter bottles of lemonade in our bags. So we started chugging away (don't like to waste food), and a security guy came up to us. He told us to relax and take the bottles on the plane. "This is Reykjavik, not New York. Have a nice flight."

      This is what I find the most obnoxious about all of it. The TSA operates inside USA borders, they can do absolutely nothing about terrorists hijacking planes coming from another country. The TSAs existence underlines one point, namely that your government believes that the terrorists are already in the USA.

    554. Re:Of course. by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      This is really no different than internet security. If you leave a hole, it will be exploited.

      Will it? I mean, will it be exploited. I see lots of "holes" in security, and they aren't exploited. I went to the mall today... guess what, the security holes weren't exploited, neither were was the bus I came home on. So why do we need this "security" for planes?

    555. Re:Of course. by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Here's the thing: No one's saying small children should be excluded from screening.

      I am.
      Small children should be excluded from screening.
      Average sized children should be excluded from screening.
      Big children should be excluded from screening.
      Adults should be excluded from screening (small ones as well as big ones.

    556. Re:Of course. by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      I disagree. The TSA provides a valuable service.

      What service do they provide?
      They make you stand next to a barrel of suspected explosives.
      They ask you to step through a radiation machine
      They ask you to walk across a dirty floor.
      They make you get to the airport 1.5 - 2 hours early
      They search your belongings.
      They rub you with the back of their hands
      What service do the perform again?

    557. Re:Of course. by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      ...doesn't that make the TSA agents, by the dictionary definition of the word, terrorists?

      Not long ago as I was going through my routine patdown (I refuse to go through the radiation machines) I was told "the threat is real."
      What threat? Were they trying to SCARE me (or terrorize me?) with some "threat?"

    558. Re:Of course. by Plammox · · Score: 2

      I only ever departed from Tel Aviv once, back in 2005. In spite of the tough security measures, the staff was very professional. And while all us single male business travelers got exposed to the full security circus, families with kids were led through much faster and with less hassle.

      TSA ought to take a lesson from their Israeli counterparts. I doubt they would separate small children from their families.

    559. Re:Of course. by Raved+Thrad · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with proportionate response? Someone assaults your daughter, have them arrested and prosecuted.

      That is not proportionate. Having them arrested and prosecuted leaves it in their minds, and that of people like them, that it's possible to get away with it, because they get to wait for the slow process of "justice" to give them, or the organization they belong to, a chance to lie and bully and bribe their way out of it.

      A proportionate response involves blood and death. Someone assaults your daughter, they die. You might die, too, but that's the price you pay for justice that is swift and final. When asshole tards begin to realize that acting like asshole tards will get them killed (not you, they don't care about you), then asshole tards will remember what courtesy and gentility is for: it's not so that you can impress people with your manners, but rather it's so that you can interact with people in a meaningful manner without someone deciding that you've been an asshole tard and need to die.

      With people like these, you can only interact with them in a language they understand. They don't understand your "rights" or their "responsibilities" and "obligations;" heck, you're lucky if they can speak English well enough to string two _complete_ sentences together and can type in other than textspeak; they probably can't even write out a simple letter or report longhand. "How to act like a decent human being?" Nah, that might as well be Martian to them. "Or die" and "and die," however, speak to their sense of self-preservation and should be simple enough for them. "Touch my daughter and die" only has one word over one syllable and should be fine. Similarly, "let go of my daughter or die" should be simple enough for them to process before your proper parental instincts kick in and you tear their throat out with your bare hands.

      --
      Life, ultimately, boils down to the Four Fs: Fighting, Fleeing, Feeding, and Mating.
    560. Re:Of course. by digitalsolo · · Score: 1

      The aggressive behavior of the TSA really is pretty ridiculous. I used to fly pretty regularly (12-15 times a year) and 90% of that was on normal airlines. I was pretty well versed on the whole TSA "procedure" and knew to have my shoes off, travel as light as possible, no coins, nothing pointy, no liquids, etc. Nonetheless at the airport in Atlanta I had a TSA moron shrieking at me to "HOLD MY WALLET LEVEL" after I took it out of my pocket. Apparently holding a wallet 10* off level is a sign of aggression.

      Certainly made me all the more appreciative of times that I was able to use the company's private plane and avoid the whole TSA theater altogether (although I did find out that they still get REALLY pissed if you drive a car out onto the tarmac at the airport. That's somewhat more understandable vs. the whole leveling of the wallet bit, though).

      --
      Just another ignorant American.
    561. Re:Of course. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Your views distress me. Can I suggest that for your own life & liberty you avoid airports? You'll only get yourself hurt, while achieving nothing of consequence - psychopaths murdering airport staff will merely lead to a crackdown on psychopaths.

      A disproportionate response will not change anything for the positive - see also the security theatre and its lack of benefits to the flying public..

    562. Re:Of course. by AdrianKemp · · Score: 1

      Well my point really was that it doesn't matter if it's happened.

      People are forced to submit to the TSAs demands if they fly, and I know several people who specifically have stopped flying entirely and solely because of the TSA.

      That in and of itself satisfies your condition that people refuse the TSAs authority. To actually go to the airport and try to run through security would be illegal and stupid since airports have the right to subject you to whatever they wish in order to let you on their planes.

    563. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The British and Israelis have to be looking at us as if we are epic cowards.

      Not only them.

      Remember the surrender monkey jokes? I used to be mildly offended by them, now I think they're genuinely funny.

      "Passer pour un idiot aux yeux d’un imbécile est une volupté de fin gourmet." Georges Courteline
      "To be taken for an idiot by a stupid person is a gourmet's pleasure."

    564. Re:Of course. by guanxi · · Score: 1

      It's paranoid.

    565. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well my point really was that it doesn't matter if it's happened.

      I for one disagree. It doesn't matter.

      If the people are so upset about the issue, they need to confront the issue, not run away from it

      I know several people who specifically have stopped flying entirely and solely because of the TSA.

      This is running away. If the TSA are terrorists, then they have won, for the people are now too scared to fly... solely because of the TSA

      To actually go to the airport and try to run through security would be illegal and stupid since airports have the right to subject you to whatever they wish in order to let you on their planes.

      That's not the only way to confront the system, but even if you go with that approach it's only illegal, not "stupid". Getting arrested makes a statement, a statement that you're willing to put yourself on the line for liberty.

      If the population resigns itself to two choices (submit to TSA and fly, or stop flying aka running away from the problem), nothing will change. Take the 3rd option.

    566. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are so scared of radiation, DON'T FLY! ... Stay home or take the bus (or a boat).

      Bus? Boat?

      It's the TRANS-POR-MOTHERFUCKING-TATION security agency. What part of TRANSPORTATION do you not understand?

      Hint: it doesn't exclude "the bus (or a boat)". And if you live within a certain number of miles of an airport, it doesn't even exclude "stay home".

    567. Re:Of course. by Raved+Thrad · · Score: 1

      The liberty you cite, which you also seem to value as much as I, is worthless if one is not willing to die to preserve it. Life, similarly, is valueless without the dignity and pride that is part and parcel of being a free, thinking, rational creature. To allow tyranny to flourish, to, as you suggest, avoid airports in order to avoid confrontation, only enables the tyranny, unthinking cruelty, and oppression perpetrated by these people.

      To die in the defense of one's beliefs is never of no consequence. It is your unwillingness to die for your beliefs or, perhaps, your lack of any beliefs that you feel willing to hazard your life for, that is truly distressing and sad.

      While I do not condone inciting confrontation for the sake of inciting confrontation, when you come to that crossroads and the only choice is to submit and let one you love be violated, or to fight, and possibly fall, to the tyrants, your choices will govern whether or not you will be able to look back at your life in pride, no matter how short that may be, or if for the rest of your life you will look at yourself in the mirror and hate that when you had the chance you did not stand up and fight for what is right.

      --
      Life, ultimately, boils down to the Four Fs: Fighting, Fleeing, Feeding, and Mating.
    568. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Children or not, the fact remains that the muslims will cut open and insert a TNT bomb inside of an Exploder, be it a child, a dog, a woman or man. When oh when will you stupid people EVER get the message that we are dealing with pure evil .. no matter that the statistics are in our favor (28,000,000 to 1) what matters is that the muslims are on a mission to kill everyone who is NOT a muslim. Get a grip and forget the touching little girl's privates business, that's what they want, among other things, to outrage us! And they couldn't care less about pedophilia .. the Afgan muslims have a 2,000 year history of pedophilia for god's sake, its part of their nasty mud-people culture. Mohammad himself was a pedophile as were most of those camel herders back in his time. They are Klingons, OK, get used to it, muslims are as alien as if they are visiting from Neptune. The ONLY solution to the terrorist problem is to exterminate the entire muslim race.

    569. Re:Of course. by jseale · · Score: 1

      To be frank, some of the staff at US airports appear to have an IQ barely above imbecility. I've been in the US four times, and nowhere else have I seen such unfriendly, unhelpful, and downright hostile personnel than at the airports. A man whose only job appeared to be holding a sign pointing to a gate refused to show us the way to the toilets. Another man went through our bags before we boarded and found the remains of a coconut which we'd intended to eat on the plane; he turned to me (I was 12 at the time), said "you must be a real idiot" and threw it in the garbage. If people like that are employed by the TSA, I'm hardly shocked that situations like the one with the little girl make the news every few weeks. If those dimwits don't know how to properly interact with passengers, put them in a position where they don't have to, or don't hire them.

      Last year, we did a trip around Iceland. Before our return flight, when we waited at the security check, we found that we still had some 2 liter bottles of lemonade in our bags. So we started chugging away (don't like to waste food), and a security guy came up to us. He told us to relax and take the bottles on the plane. "This is Reykjavik, not New York. Have a nice flight."

      Keep in mind that some of these TSA agents are actually cops that may have been fired for whatever reason by their jurisdiction, and they'd do anything just to make a get by in this economy and retain their experience at the same time. Some cops may actually start out as TSA agents instead of serving in the military or, for heaven's sake, being 'mall cops'.

    570. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      here here

    571. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point. It's just solid common sense parenting to let the child grow up with a Father in Federal Prison. Dad of the year.

    572. Re:Of course. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Just a second while I get a lounger and a six pack. Proper beer, not that piss-water that passes for beer west of the Atlantic.

      OK ; I'm comfortable. Entertain us!

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    573. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A doctor or nurse is a trained professional and handles the situation in a professional and caring manner.

      A TSA agent is a trained profe... nope, I can't say it with a straight face.

    574. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for confirming my current feelings about my homeland. It is strangely comforting to know that we are the stick being used to measure how much better the rest of the world is than US.

      Given your choice where would you relocate your family to?

    575. Re:Of course. by eriqk · · Score: 1

      Terrorists, as the name implies, operate more on the psychological impact of what they do than the physical impact. Hijacking a plane and then crashing it wherever they want has a significantly higher psychological impact on the populace than just bombing an airport (not to say that doesn't have an impact, just less of one).

      Short history lesson.

    576. Re:Of course. by Cow+Jones · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how to interpret your question... I never said that the US were worse than the rest of the world, that would be ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as relocating your family because of some incompetent TSA agents. If you're unhappy where you live, you need to travel abroad and see for yourself. Just don't judge a whole nation by the behavior of its airport security staff.

      --

      Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
    577. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If searches are really random, controlled by a computer, for example, terrorists wouldn't need to test the system. Just send N guys through N airports and your random search will miss a non-zero percentage of them.

    578. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From TFA: "At all stages of the process, the Israelis employ profiling, but it's not profiling based on race, but on behavior"

    579. Re:Of course. by ganesh.rao · · Score: 0

      Same here. I'd been to Afghanistan before I traveled to Israel (entry Tel Aviv). Surely, I was pulled aside and questioned about my travel history, respectfully. And yes the interviewer did have common sense! While departing too I was screened upto my toes but it was done professionally by skilled security agents. While I haven't been to the US yet, reading this much about TSA online seems to be crossing the line I'd draw for disgusting. They should certainly learn a thing or two from Israel.

    580. Re:Of course. by sunsurfandsand · · Score: 1

      Denmark.

    581. Re:Of course. by Vidovix · · Score: 1

      Now what does concern me is that if the American people feel that their system of democracy is a fallacy and lose faith in our electoral system.

      .

      Who do you want, the puppet on the left or the puppet in the right? In Brazil, the scenario is even more caothic/pathetic: all sorts of puppets, clowns, artists...despite the higly developed election sistem. We have the winners in the very same day, around midnite. How convenient is that?.

      Anyway, your towers were probably attacked by the worst criminals of the world and theyre not terrorists... they control you mostly by means of fear, I guess..

      Given the rights circumstances, a new reality is just as possible as the old one. Revolution is possible, but the war must be fougth in the real fields, you know... Bellum sine bello

    582. Re:Of course. by sunsurfandsand · · Score: 1

      "Lately a TSA agent allowed me to pass a 3+ oz jar of Hawaiian mustard through. He took it out of my bag, looked at it, thought about it, then shrugged at me and handed it back. Cuz it was mustard." Which you could have used to make mustard gas.

    583. Re:Of course. by hierophanta · · Score: 1

      11 September's events were purely provocative in nature... The reason for 11 September, even simpler: they wanted many to die, and for those who were left to be driven into fear.

      I'm convinced of this: I do not know the motives for the attacks on 911. I am also convinced that you do not either. If you would like to bring a source for the information you presented I'd be all ears.

    584. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a US citizen who flew to London (Newark to Montreal, where I picked up some computer equipment, Montreal to Heathrow, and then, about a week later, Heathrow to Newark) last year, I'd had the opposite experience. Heathrow staff weren't a problem at all.

      Interestingly, when I flew from Newark to LAX a few weeks later with that same equipment, the TSA suddenly had a problem with the contents of my bag. In the end, they did a hand search of my bag (with my agreement), and let me go on my way.

    585. Re:Of course. by Minion+of+Eris · · Score: 1

      Yes, it would be. They have a legal sanction to be invasive pricks. An excessive force charge may be applicable, but I think your chances of a successful prosecution are about the same as an Abu Graib inmate charging a guard.

      --
      Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say.
    586. Re:Of course. by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Otherwise, despite increased cockpit security and civilian awareness, we'd all die from terrorist attacks! That's why you must surrender your privacy in exchange for the all-important security theater like a good citizen would do. Otherwise, you're just a terrorist!

      Do you mean surrender the private parts of a 4 year old child, frightened with what is being forced on her? I am sure a terrorist will want to blow up a 4 year old child by planting an explosive up her private parts.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    587. Re:Of course. by shentino · · Score: 1

      With an attitude like that you'll be lucky if the prosecutor lets you survive voir dire.

      Lawyers hate geniuses or people with moral conviction on the jury. They want dumb sheep they can lead to the slaughter with grandiose theater.

    588. Re:Of course. by SavvyPlayer · · Score: 1

      To mitigate this risk we simply require that all people in the queue stand at least 10 feet apart.

    589. Re:Of course. by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      To make this a further point - some of the Chechnyan "freedom fighters" found by soldiers during Iraq, etc were Blonde/Red w/blue eyes. Good luck on your average TSA agent ever filtering out one of these if they decide to come here. They speak Russian dialects, are Muslim and can also speak fluent Arabic. If they only learn even very basic English, then the TSA agents on the ground have no visual or audible way to distinguish if they are a terrorist or not.

      (And there's been many Chechnyan suicide bombers as well.)

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
    590. Re:Of course. by philip.paradis · · Score: 1

      Go fuck yourself. I have two daughters. I'd do the same to anyone engaging in any sort of extensive contact with my children without my express permission and immediate supervision. Frankly, if you were present and had a problem with that, I'd be happy to deal with you as well. So again, go fuck yourself you sniveling little piece of shit.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    591. Re:Of course. by Cederic · · Score: 0

      Oooh, aren't you the big man.

      Tell me, did you kill the nursery teacher for changing your daughters' nappies? Because I'm betting you weren't there, and that there was considerable contact to the groin area.

      "oh, but that's different" you'll claim? Guess what. Legal contact is still legal contact. If you don't like that, don't put your daughters there and try and get the law changed.

      Shit, email me when you daughters hit 16, I'll bring them here and show you some extensive contact.

    592. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bringing a minor across state lines in the intention of having sexual contact with them is a pretty serious crime, you realize? It doesn't matter if the age of consent in the state you end up in is 16, if you leave a state where it was 17 or 18 then you are in violation.

    593. Re:Of course. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      They've always removed me from the jury pool, by asking a question designed to show whether I was intelligent or not. Last time it was, "How believable is a police officer compared to a member of the public?" My response included that the officer had training in observation and recollection, so would likely be a slightly better recording device than a common human, so perhaps 55%, or 60%, instead of 50/50? The judge said, and I quote, "Next."

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    594. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've always removed me from the jury pool, by asking a question designed to show whether I was intelligent or not. Last time it was, "How believable is a police officer compared to a member of the public?" My response included that the officer had training in observation and recollection, so would likely be a slightly better recording device than a common human, so perhaps 55%, or 60%, instead of 50/50? The judge said, and I quote, "Next."

      Way to be purposefully obtuse. The point of the question was not "who would be able to more accurately remember what happened" - and you know it. The question was "who would you believe was giving a more accurate record of what happened". Basically, it boils down to "absent of any evidence whatsoever, will you believe the cop or the suspect?"

      Absent of any evidence whatsoever, I could not in good conscience convict. It doesn't matter whether they are a police officer or not, their story has to be supported by evidence or I'm not believing either of them.

    595. Re:Of course. by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 1

      Travel will never be 100% safe. Just fucking accept that fact and get on with life with some dignity!

      So many things that go boom, aren't metallic. Most I believe.

      I'm glad you're willing to die to be a martyr, I'm not. However, I am willing to be groped
      (once again, it will not destroy my moral fiber) than be blown up. Since I think most side
      with me... you are just being facetious.

      -AI

      --
      For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
    596. Re:Of course. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Way to be purposefully obtuse.

      Uh, no, it was "way to be challenged on the spot". I really wanted to be on that jury, actually, not because of the issue but because I am interested in learning our civic processes. (I'm also slightly afflicted with Asperger's so do not always function correctly, socially.) And, no, I didn't think, when I was on-the-spot, that the question was related to evidence-less claims, I took the question at face value and attempted to answer it as best I could. Next time I will ask for clarification.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    597. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay. I'm not trying to call you a liar, just pointing out that the question meant something completely other than the concern your answer actually addressed.

      "Believable" and "credible" are two entirely different things. Your answer hit the meaning of credibility, not believability. To be believable, you also have to assume that they can't be lying; in a court of law, this assumption is simply not acceptable to me.

      As someone who actually has been called for jury duty in a couple of weeks (like you, I'll probably be disqualified when they discover I'm not a yes-man for the executive branch - the police are part of the executive branch, btw), I try to think these things over so I won't be quite so "on the spot" when I get asked that sort of question. It'll probably still happen, but it can't hurt to be prepared.

    598. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This is Reykjavik, not New York. Have a nice flight."

      FYI: You could replace "Reykjavik" in there with almost any city in Europe (except the UK ofc) :/

    599. Re:Of course. by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      You think it is bad if the machine malfunctions?

      What about when the PLANE malfunctions?!

      AA 587, AF 447, Alaska Airline 261, etc.

      And if you don't scan and we have another 9/11?

      Uh oh, that proves the machines could result in more cancer cases, if you get killed by terrorists, you'll never be able to get cancer later - if the terrorists are stopped - you can!

      Any stories of radiation burns or sickness from these machines?
      As for cancer, so many things are said to cause cancer it is amazing we don't all get it by age 2!

      #1 cancer risk: OLD AGE!

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    600. Re:Of course. by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Supply and demand, they'll lower prices until demand gets up to the supply (since they want planes to be as full as possible).

      I'll take my chances, again, I'm not saying there is no risk, but you are so much more likely to die of a heart attack or a car accident or anything other than cancer until you are old, in which case you have enough mutations (which is what old age is about) so that cancer can develop easier.

      If you have 10 extra cancers a year, it will take 300 years to kill as many as 9/11 did in one day!

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    601. Re:Of course. by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Even using the high estimate of 10, and assuming their all passengers (unlikely since the TSA agents are near the machines for 40 hours a week, not seconds, so their dose is going to be higher - that's why doctors leave the X-ray room when you get one), that means if it stops one 9/11 attack more often than every 300 years it is a net win for passengers and people on the ground.

      You don't have a right to fly. If you get put on the No Fly list you will be banned from the air, period! Quoting a law preventing discrimination against handicapped people doesn't prove you have an unalienable right to fly!

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    602. Re:Of course. by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      They'll lower fares to get more people.

      It still costs over $200 to go many places in the US, and demand is elastic and supply mostly fixed.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    603. Re:Of course. by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      I'm going to listen to that song "Have You Forgotten" about 9/11 again, since you all already have!

      Didn't think it would happen so fast.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    604. Re:Of course. by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      It isn't cancer vs nothing it is cancer vs 9/11 part 2.

      And how exactly does a cell know not to get cancer because the radiation is natural?

      Radon is very natural and it causes cancer.

      Having radon in your home would be like getting a scan every hour of every day!

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    605. Re:Of course. by gstrickler · · Score: 1

      Even using the high estimate of 10, and assuming their all passengers (unlikely since the TSA agents are near the machines for 40 hours a week, not seconds, so their dose is going to be higher - that's why doctors leave the X-ray room when you get one), that means if it stops one 9/11 attack more often than every 300 years it is a net win for passengers and people on the ground.

      You don't have a right to fly. If you get put on the No Fly list you will be banned from the air, period!

      Assuming that they can stop an attack is itself extremely implausible since the TSA fails more than 70% of the penetration tests, only scans about 10% of cargo, and doesn't scan all airport workers. It's also a huge fallacy to assume attackers would attempt the same tactic of using airliners, or that they would succeed in killing 3000. The attempts since 2011 have been stopped by passengers and crew. What has made flights safer are reinforced cockpit doors, air marshals, and crew and passengers who aren't willing "appease" hijackers. Your argument is complete nonsense based upon unsupportable assumptions and fallacies.

      But most importantly, you completely ignore the fact that the x-ray scanners don't work. They do not make flying one bit safer. They are 100% unnecessary. The radiation exposure is 100% unnecessary.

      Quoting a law preventing discrimination against handicapped people doesn't prove you have an unalienable right to fly!

      Your misinterpretation of the law doesn't mean I don't have a right. Read the first sentence of the clause. No qualifiers. The rest of the clause is an extrapolation of that right as inticated by the phrase "To further that right, ...".

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    606. Re:Of course. by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Radiation burns?

      You're kidding me!

      They wouldn't make the emitter that powerful, it wouldn't be cost effective to do so!

      It is likely capable of only 2X nominal output or less before it burns out!

      Making the emitter capable of 100X or more nominal power would be crazy.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    607. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a daddy, no one touches my little girls there except a doctor for medical reason.

      IF they do, they wind up on floor unconscious.

      And suppose, for argument's sake, that your little girls were touched "there" by a TSA agent (or a pedophile) who pretended to be a doctor, looked and behaved exactly as a doctor would do, and examined their genitals in exactly the same manner, then your little girls would be more damaged than if a real doctor had examined them. Right?

      No? This means that your murderous outrage has nothing to do with actual damage being done to your child.

    608. Re:Of course. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Thanks, and good luck. (PS There was a run of 5 6's in the comment number of your post; I notice these things, likely some impact of the Asperger's... :)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    609. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it was only 4 6's. I noticed it too, and I and was kind of disappointed that I didn't get quintuplets. In my case, likely some impact of spending way too much time on 4chan.

    610. Re:Of course. by bratwiz · · Score: 1

      Why is this marked as funny, it should be "insightful"-- and I agree.

    611. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make sure you get me on your jury, I would find you laughably innocent without hesitation. I hope the right of citizens in a jury to change laws starts getting used. Seriously, if you killed a TSA agent doing that I would not find you guilty of anything. This is a crime by the TSA and needs to stop. Time for a shooting revolution. Arm yourselves and prepare, it is coming.

    612. Re:Of course. by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's expensive, time consuming. And essentially guaranteed to be dismissed because you're trying to sue the Federal government.

    613. Re:Of course. by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      I was a paid deckhand. And if I grabbed a little girl to get her out of the way of danger, that would be doing my job.

      But if I grabbed a little girl and started fondling her genitalia and feeling her up. I'd be out of a job and likely sitting in a jail cell.

      There is a HUGE difference. I really hope you're not groping and fondling little girls while you rescue them.

    614. Re:Of course. by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Abu Graib inmate actually has a much better chance of winning in court.

    615. Re:Of course. by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Your post doesn't even make any sense.

      In fact, you almost come across as if you're a pedophile trying to justify yourself as not being any worse than a doctor.

      And the answer is YES, there would be more harm with a pedophile doing the exact same thing that a doctor might. Yes there is more harm in a pedophile doctor than a non-pedophile doctor.

      Murderous rage would have prevented 11 million Jews and others being killed by the Nazis. Perhaps if we had been a little bit more enraged millions of children wouldn't have been snuffed out of existence.

    616. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hijacking a plane is no longer possible thanks to locked doors in cockpits.

      Unless, you know, the pilot is an undercover terrorist. Then everyone's fucked because the flight staff can't break in and overpower him.

    617. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation please? According to Wikipedia, the only terrorist group to employ this tactic is Hamas, even though Israeli security does screen women -- which rather invalidates the theory.

      Try Chechnya, Afghanistan, to name but two. Read some books on terrorism or maybe learn a bit about contemporary history. Muslim countries have far more terrorism from Muslim extremists than any Western country. It's popular to rape woman and then convince them to become suicide bombers, because once they are raped they are persona non grata anyways. For good measure these people will give her family money and hope for the future.

      Instead of fighting each other with the TSA and repressive laws, people should think about sending in more troupes to places like Afghanistan to curb the terrorism (instead of sending them back home). Of course the powers that be would rather spend the money harassing their own citizens rather than actually taking the fight to the terrorists.

      And nope, remote control areal bombardment of dubious targets does not count.

      As for references, try using Google. Or maybe just reading the news sites (like the non-American news sites, and the non-British tabloids. The BBC is a good starting point).

      One relevant book would be Chechen Jihad by Yossef Bodansky.

      -1 Moderation? The Slashdot moderation system once again fails. They moderate uninformative posts that are based on ignorance as Informative (like the GP). And the Informative posts (like the parent) get down-moderated. Shame!

  2. LOL! American Freedom! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    LOL! American Freedom!

    1. Re:LOL! American Freedom! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.

      - Kris Kristofferson -

  3. They called her an :uncooperative subject" by Chas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No shit! I honestly don't know of ANY 4 year old that's going to be graceful and cooperative about being taken away from a family member and groped. Sorry, this isn't some sicko loli fantasy. This is real life with real people, and some real perspective needs to be acquired here.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" by mea_culpa · · Score: 4, Informative

      I just wish there were a candidate for president running right now that would actually do something about it.
      Oh wait.

    2. Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" by laffer1 · · Score: 1

      Both parties benefit from security theater and the small parties can't win now. We're stuck.

    3. Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Informative

      There are several, unfortunately none of them belong either of the 2 parties that the media have deemed worthy of the office. So you'll never hear about them.

    4. Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" by roman_mir · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah, and if that same candidate also had a sound monetary and economic policy and a sound foreign policy, he would be the top choice of all of the voters regardless of their party denomination.

      Oh wait.

    5. Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Both parties benefit from security theater and the small parties can't win now. We're stuck.

      Vote for the smaller parties anyway. It's the only way they can grow big.

    6. Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's called poor training. It simply isn't easy to access children, every medical student learns this. For example, to examine a young child's ears, nose and throat (especially the throat) you have to make use of the mother / caregiver and either a battalion of nurses to hold the blanket wrapped child down or clever psychology. Only occasionally you'll lucky enough to find a co-operative 4 yo with the right temperament who will open her mouth for you and allow you to depress her tongue with a depressor. These cops simply do not have correct training. One does not consider a child a suspect, nor does one forcibly grope a child or expect the child to co-operate or expect the grandmother to be able to magically calm a child down after threats of airport closure.

    7. Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      There are several, unfortunately none of them are among those that the media have deemed worthy of the office. So you'll never hear about them.

      FTFY

      Ron Paul 2012!!!

    8. Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" by fermion · · Score: 2, Interesting
      To be pedantic, Ron Paul is not running for president and he likely never will be. He is running for the nomination to be the presidential candidate for the republican party.

      The very fact that is running to be a candidate for the Republican Party, and not running to be president, shows his lack of seriousness to actually change anything. He could be an independent candidate. He has the popularity, the resources, the name recognition. He, is, however more interested in profiting off the party system and big government rather than making incremental changes that will result in the more prosperous and libertarian society he claims to want.

      How does he leverage big government? His district, for instance, is dependent on the government dole. Most people work directly or indirectly for the government. NASA controls everything at a time when it makes a lot of sense to privatize space travel using libertarian ideals. He has the federal government build bus stops and infrastructure so the locals can pay domestic help less, instead of letting the free market work. He has the government pay the shrimp industry huge sums of money to convince people to eat shrimp rather than, again, allowing the free market to work.

      If Paul were serious about changing the world, he could do a lot. Unlike Alaska, Arizona, and the like, Texas does not need the government dole. We are fiscally responsible people. Paul could be more local to end the waste that results in million dollar bus stops with contracts given to buddies, government funding that promotes one industry over another, and government control of what should be free enterprise. His continuous affiliation with the republican party proves his unwillingness to truly fight for what he says he believes.

      I think a Ron Paul presidential candidate would be cool, but the farce of a Ron Paul republican nomination just indicates the continuation of national office to generate personal profit.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    9. Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" by flirno · · Score: 1

      Unless they had the money to publicize, how would anyone know about them eh?

    10. Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yep, I'll be voting Ron Paul, as well.

    11. Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" by firex726 · · Score: 1

      I find it interesting they used the term SUSPECT

      What was she suspect of? Did they honestly have some credible reason so feel she was going to do something malcontempt?
      If the police question me in relation to a crime as a witness I am not a suspect to said crime. I am a suspect if they are questioning me and feel there is a likelihood I did commit said crime.

      If this child is a suspect, what is she suspected of being/doing?

    12. Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 5, Informative

      Vote Ron Paul!

      Ron Paul wants to demolish the TSA.

    13. Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This isn't "poor training." This is "criminal negligence" on the part of those who provided such "poor training" and sexual assault on the part of those that perpetrated it.

      Someone should be fired for okaying this. Out of a cannon. Into the sun.

    14. Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" by noh8rz3 · · Score: 3

      ron paul revolution!

    15. Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 1

      Exactly. You guys keep voting in Democrats and Republicans; this is what you get!

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    16. Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't the media's fault the system is broken. Put in instant runoff voting and I bet you'll hear a lot more about other parties starting the following election cycle.

    17. Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" by Chas · · Score: 2

      It isn't the media's fault the system is broken.

      Actually it's everyone's fault. The media included.

      They took a situation that was already very tense and crazy and turned it into a fucking circus. That only fanned the panic and turned into a nasty situation that just feeds itself.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    18. Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" by Chas · · Score: 1

      Basically any kid who doesn't behave themselves when groped inappropriately MUST be this.

      Right?

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    19. Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" by zildgulf · · Score: 1

      These aren't cops, they are rent-a-cop TSA "agents". This and many other so-called "agent" is simply acting like a meat robot. For some reason even some cops don't seem to understand that.

    20. Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      If Ron Paul was running as an independent, he wouldn't get even the meagre MSM coverage that he is getting now.

      They can limit his time to 89 SECONDS in a 'debate', but at least he is on camera.

    21. Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" by Ihmhi · · Score: 2

      So the biggest complaints about him basically boil down to "He's trying to work within the existing system instead of trying what Ross Perot and Ralph Nader couldn't do with millions of dollars" and "He funnels as much money as he can to his district"?

      The first one is him being sensible to a degree - moreover, how do you know he won't just outright pull out of the Republican nomination and run independently?

      And as for the second one, that is literally every politician ever. If a politician said "I'm going to reduce all the stuff my district is getting!" there would be a recall vote faster than you can fuck up voting on a hanging chad!

    22. Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" by skine · · Score: 0

      Vote Ron Paul!

      Ron Paul wants to demolish the USA.

      FTFY

    23. Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry for the AC post, but I've moderated in this discussion and don't want to undo that.

      Alaska, my home state, doesn't really need Federal funds. We have had a budget surplus for years, and that will continue for the foreseeable future. There are many, including me, who would rather we weren't so reliant on federal money.

    24. Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      Sorry to break it to you, but to LEOs everyone is a suspect.

    25. Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" by Khith · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ron Paul wants to demolish the TSA.

      And the NDAA, and the Patriot Act, and that anti-protest law, and the ability to drone-kill Americans without trial, and many other shitty things that have been going on. His policies may not be perfect, but he's far ahead of anyone else where it counts.

    26. Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know Ron Paul is running for President and not King, right?

      As much as I'd like someone to abolish the TSA, it'll still take Congress to craft the law and get it passed. Good luck finding at least 268 congess members willing to go on the chopping block when they get blamed for weakening America when the next bad thing happens.

    27. Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. That's too nice. Since the government is blind to violations of the Constitution, these useless fucks should be subject to cruel and unusual punishment that takes a long, long time to be fatal. They deserve it, and the Constitution shouldn't protect them as long as it isn't fucking protecting anybody else.

    28. Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" by Khith · · Score: 1

      Most of the US media is owned by only 6 companies, and the news isn't so much reported on these days but instead is created. http://frugaldad.com/2011/11/22/media-consolidation-infographic/

      It's hard to find a news source that doesn't twist things to fit an overall narrative. One of the best sources I've been able to find is Ben Swann on his show "Reality Check". It's a local Fox station in Cincinnati. (Yes, I know that we hate Fox, but this is an exception.) He reveals things that nobody else is even talking about, things that people are lying about, etc. The man seems to be one of the few great reporters left in the country. Check him out here. http://www.youtube.com/user/benswannrealitycheck/

    29. Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Please do not use the word "cops" here. Cops aren't great either, but the TSA are not "cops", they're federal agents. They have no law enforcement powers at all; if something bad happens at the airport, they have to call over the REAL cops (who are standing not too far away).

    30. Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Out of a cannon. Into the Sun," Most beautiful quote of the last 4 years! Thank you for voicing my thoughts.

  4. My 2 cents by JasoninKS · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Could we please shut down this joke of an organization? How many stories do we have to hear like this? Frankly, if you touch my daughter and yell at her like this I'll have you arrested for indecent liberties with a child, abuse of a child, and I'll do whatever I can to have you listed on every sexual predator website I can find and basically I'm willing to destroy your life. If a parent acted like this they'd be arrested and the kids taken away. But because "Floyd" watched a 15 minute instructional video, he gets a cardboard badge and the ability to make up any rules he wants and doesn't have to tell anyone what the rules are.

    1. Re:My 2 cents by timlyg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The very existence of TSA proves the victory of OSAMA. I'm sorry to say this, but it's true.

    2. Re:My 2 cents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Frankly, if you touch my daughter and yell at her like this I'll have you arrested for indecent liberties with a child, abuse of a child, and I'll do whatever I can to have you listed on every sexual predator website I can find and basically I'm willing to destroy your life.

      Sorry, can't be done, others have tried (do a search on TSA abuses of children). The only reason these clowns get away with this crap is that we continue to allow it happen by not demanding congress get rid of them. Since they are "government agents" they are immune to a wide variety of offenses. Congress keeps threatening to strip them of their immunity, but as far as I can tell it is just election year "democracy theater" and my guess is nothing will actually be done until there is a massive public outcry or armed rebellion.

    3. Re:My 2 cents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Posting as AC because I've been modding.

      Sorry, can't be done

      Since they are "government agents" they are immune to a wide variety of offenses.

      No, this is incorrect.

      When a police officer for example acts outside his professional role, his immunity evaporates.

      The Congressional members themselves, according to the Constitution:

      Section 6. Clause 1. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

      So they cease to be immune in cases of Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace. When they blather on about supposed immunity of federal agents whose office isn't even provided for in the founding documents, you have a clear argument for felony fraud and racketeering, if not treason. Same goes for any other official covering for them.

      The underlying problem has been the apathy of the People, tolerating any old excuse from government officials to justify clearly unconstitutional practices. It's now become commonplace, and it's still wrong as it ever was. As this four year-old girl is finding out, along with those who read about her encounter.

        Congress keeps threatening to strip them of their immunity, but as far as I can tell it is just election year "democracy theater" and my guess is nothing will actually be done until there is a massive public outcry or armed rebellion.

    4. Re:My 2 cents by netsavior · · Score: 2

      I think the average slashdotter can do more to defame a person online than the average news organization. Really if I was that mad and I knew the person's name, I could really toe the law making their online presence one of shame and warning.

    5. Re:My 2 cents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, excuse me, but you are wrong... those badges are chrome vanadium with genuine imitation brass coating.

    6. Re:My 2 cents by Jesus_666 · · Score: 2

      I think every vacation spot outside the USA is very thankful for the existence of the TSA. Think of it less as a security measure and more of a measure to keep tourists out.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    7. Re:My 2 cents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, this is incorrect.

      When a police officer for example acts outside his professional role, his immunity evaporates.

      That's not quite accurate, what you're talking about is being exempt from the law. That's not the same thing as having immunity from prosecution. Immunity can't be legislated, it's a decision by the Judicial branch of government saying they choose not to file charges.

      And if anybody cares, here's a link to the original article which has fewer errors in the reporting and more information from the mother:
      http://missoulian.com/news/local/missoula-mother-says-tsa-treated-her--year-old-like/article_cc0e932e-8e74-11e1-bfe6-0019bb2963f4.html

    8. Re:My 2 cents by Wovel · · Score: 1

      The judicial branch does not choose to file charges. The executive branch does. While you may be technically correct, eventually allowing that immunity becomes a political liability.

    9. Re:My 2 cents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am just waiting for the lawyers to smell the money for the class action lawsuit. Of course with the current state of the supremes, they will probably overturn it and declare we all must be dehumanized before possibly being allowed to board, not just the few that "look suspicious".

    10. Re:My 2 cents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      with a name like that, oTSAma bin Laden had it easy.

    11. Re:My 2 cents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a maxim within American Common Law that selective enforcement of law is no law. In a country that purported, from its establishing documents, to be founded upon the idea that all men are created equal, and which does not grant titles of nobility as Britain did, the idea of a branch of government choosing who cannot be prosecuted for what is a very foreign and strange concept.

      I can understand a District Attorney having to prioritize their caseload, but not a branch of government selectively applying the law. According to our basis of law, at that point what's happening there isn't law anymore.

      That it's become common practice today wouldn't surprise me, however.

    12. Re:My 2 cents by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Frankly, if you touch my daughter and yell at her like this I'll have you arrested for indecent liberties with a child, abuse of a child, and I'll do whatever I can to have you listed on every sexual predator website I can find and basically I'm willing to destroy your life. If a parent acted like this they'd be arrested and the kids taken away. But because "Floyd" watched a 15 minute instructional video, he gets a cardboard badge and the ability to make up any rules he wants and doesn't have to tell anyone what the rules are.

      Tell me, who exactly are you going to ask to arrest "Floyd"?

    13. Re:My 2 cents by jkflying · · Score: 1

      Except for the people who actually work there... you know, the ones who run the shops, the B&Bs, the hotels, the charter boats, the things that make the holiday destination a holiday destination?

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    14. Re:My 2 cents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The very existence of TSA proves the victory of OBAMA. I'm sorry to say this, but it's true.

      FTFY

    15. Re:My 2 cents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can personally say that I, as a European, has turned down two job offers in the US for big american tech firms, mainly due to this. I also have no plans to visit the US as a tourist, due to this. If it wasn't for the so called "security" at the border, I'd be happy to visit the country, there seems to be quite some cool people and places there.

      Unfourtunately, last time I visited the UK, the border control there wasn't much better. And I have friends and business partners there...

    16. Re:My 2 cents by ClioCJS · · Score: 0

      Huh? The TSA was created by Bush, you fucking idiot.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    17. Re:My 2 cents by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Kept me out this year, there was a lot of interesting stuff I really wanted to do. The real dealbreaker was the electronics seizures, I'd probably suffer the same fate as Moxie Marlinspike. And that's assuming I wouldn't be carted off to Gitmo - which I wouldn't assume if I had a middle-eastern name.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    18. Re:My 2 cents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn to tell time, and which number is bigger than the other. Tool

    19. Re:My 2 cents by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Reading comprehension much? I realize there's only one letter difference, but he wasn't talking about which administration created it; he was talking about the terrorists, and how they're winning. We are now less free than we were last millennium. But still, project your rage.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    20. Re:My 2 cents by jyx · · Score: 1

      Could we please shut down this joke of an organization? How many stories do we have to hear like this? Frankly, if you touch my daughter and yell at her like this I'll have you arrested for indecent liberties with a child

      No you wont. You'll watch it happen in front of you whilst you seethe with impotent rage and silently scream at your neighbors in line for someone to say something. Your fellow passengers will look at their boots and wish for the episode to pass as quickly as possible. Everyone will die a little bit inside.

      And if you do make a scene, you'll be quickly taken aside whilst they rack up felonies against you. Maybe if your lucky your story will end up briefly in some news outlets where you will be confused with nude man guy, some strangers may donate to your defense fund but you are pretty much screwed for life now.

      And that is why I'm never visiting America again. Sort that shit out because its spreading across the world.

      (Oh, I also do not want to see another squirt on cheese in a pump bottle - nasty)

    21. Re:My 2 cents by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      And interestingly, the abuses by TSA are the responsibility of OBAMA.

      (Watch some Obama-lovers mod me down now. Weird how the Democrat voters are now the ones who hate civil liberties.)

  5. The TSA by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The TSA... where the agents are pedophiles, the supervisors are thieves and the ones pointing out flaws in the system are unemployed.

    1. Re:The TSA by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Mod +Infinity

    2. Re:The TSA by MDillenbeck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I was going to say that any other person trying to pat down a 4 year old would be considered a child molester...

    3. Re:The TSA by Zsub · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And this is your mistake, see. You should consider any person trying to pat down a 4 year old a child molester. Any mistake to do so results in news like this.

    4. Re:The TSA by skovnymfe · · Score: 1

      Will someone PLEASE think of the children?!

      Hey, why not use it when it's finally to our advantage?

    5. Re:The TSA by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      And hey, they're 'stopping terrorists' but they're letting drug dealers right on through!

      Of course, it says something that the only reason the authorities found out about this going on was that one of the drug couriers was too friggin' stupid to go to the terminal with the bribed TSA agents.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    6. Re:The TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, sure! First it's them saying "think of the children". Then it's us saying "think of the children". When will it end? I'm telling you, if we keep this up *everybody's* going to be "thinking of the children", and then what? Do you really want to live in a world like that? Do you???

    7. Re:The TSA by oobayly · · Score: 1

      I think the problem is that they're thinking of the children.

    8. Re:The TSA by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      You should be happy you have government vetted pedophiles protecting you from potential kiddie terrorists!

    9. Re:The TSA by MDillenbeck · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I can admit that a 4 year old can be pretty terrifying... but based on the article the TSA only worsened the assault. (Sorry, just trying to inject a little W C Fields styled humor into a not very funny subject.)

  6. In TSA's defense by outsider007 · · Score: 3, Funny

    The grandmother was a 3 oz container of liquid.

    --
    If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    1. Re:In TSA's defense by Pope · · Score: 3, Funny

      An ugly bag of mostly water?

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  7. On the plus side by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now that US airports are treating their own citizens as badly as they do foreigners, they can no longer be accused of being racist.

    1. Re:On the plus side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing you don't actually understand the term "racist".

    2. Re:On the plus side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm thinking we need new single words that encompass each of "systemic/systematic racism" and "prejudicial racism." Then these stupid semantic pissing matches might go away.

    3. Re:On the plus side by Jessified · · Score: 1

      So true. I've always said that, strategically, the TSA's biggest political mistake was treating the white people as badly as everyone else.

  8. Security Theater by CyclistOne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's been said before but it bears repetition, the TSA is security theater, that's all. And all paid for with our tax dollars. We are a nation of sheep.

    1. Re:Security Theater by Hatta · · Score: 0

      It's not just the TSA. It's the entire government. Everything, from the SEC to the FBI is just theatre.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Security Theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just security theater, but enablers now too. LA TSA agents were discovered accepting money to let illegal drugs pass through screening.

    3. Re:Security Theater by daveewart · · Score: 1

      "Security Theater" implies that it is harmless, in my opinion. I don't believe that's the case here. What's a better term for "not meeting the objectives it's supposedly trying to meet and being actively harmful in the process"?

      --
      "If you think the problem is bad now, just wait until we've solved it." --- Arthur Kasspe
    4. Re:Security Theater by CyclistOne · · Score: 1

      Good point. I agree with you.

  9. Good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do this to everybody who's one of the "but it keeps us safe", particularly the red staters. It's all well and good to vote laws that affect others - they should suffer the same as "them".

    1. Re:Good... by Coolhand2120 · · Score: 0

      Ya all the conservative/libertarians are totally for a huge authoritarian state. Give me a break. Read a book.

      The Law by Frédéric Bastiat [1850]

    2. Re:Good... by Wovel · · Score: 1

      They did create it...

    3. Re:Good... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      Ya all the conservative/libertarians are totally for a huge authoritarian state. Give me a break. Read a book.

      Conservative/libertarians are totally for a huge authoritarian state: but one that only applies to "them," as in "those other guys". Do you doubt this? How about the Arizona "Papers, please" law? Do you think the transplanted rednecks in favor of this law for a moment felt that they would be detained on the street and asked for proof of citizenship? No, they understand how the law is to be applied. Twelfth generation Hispanic Arizona native? Fair game. White retiree? Not a chance.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    4. Re:Good... by Coolhand2120 · · Score: 0

      transplanted rednecks

      Ya, you sound like a real tolerant open minded guy.

      Police in every state in the union are required to act if they have "probable cause" that a crime is being committed. Last time I checked, it's illegal to be in the country illegally. Because you obviously cannot cope with that little fact we can't have a regular discussion.

      The real problem with people like you is that you believe that it is not raciest to treat people based on the color of their skin but it somehow is racist to treat everyone exactly the same regardless of their skin color.

      Twelfth generation Hispanic Arizona native? Fair game.

      Even though the Arizona law explicitly prohibits the use of race to identify illegals, you just gota bring it up, becuase just like a good little Democrat, all you can see is race. Everything to you is a chance to "play the race card". I think you would be well served to read up on your history. Democrats were the slave owners prior to the civil war. Abe Lincoln was the first Republican president. Democrats are responsible for the segregation of the army. Democrats are responsible for "Jim Crow" laws. Democrats voted against every single civil rights act down party lines. Democrat Governors literally stood in the way of black kids trying to attend school in the 60's - that's less than a lifetime ago, many older people still remember that. Democrats were the a huge driving part of the KKK. The once oldest living senator Robert Bird - a Democrat - was a high ranking KKK member and in the senate up till just a year or two ago when he died. Did I mention that the Democrats were the slave owners and were willing to destroy the union to keep their right to keep slaves? The racist Republicans were willing to destory the union to take that "right" away. I want to make sure you remember who the Democrats are. And you know what sucks for you? You can go look up every single thing I just said in Wikipedia! It's all true. I'll let you decide if you want to keep your cognitive dissonance or not.

      Now today, the same Democrats tell everyone "the 'African-American' is too dumb to get a job without special help" and I'm supposed to view that as anything but racist? There's only one group of racists here and it's the group that judges absolutely everything by race. That is by definition racist.

      Maybe you can show me why the Republicans are so racist. I'm sure it's much worse than the list I just gave you. What do they do? Hide racist innuendo in what most people view as normal speech? Please, do tell. I can't wait to hear the long terrible history of the racist Republicans. By the way you sound, it must be far worse than the history of the Democrat party.


      Lincoln explained the difference between Democrats and Republicans best when he said this:

      The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatable things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatable names—liberty and tyranny.

  10. What is it? by Buchenskjoll · · Score: 0

    Please excuse my ignorance, but what does "patted down" mean?

    --
    -- Make America hate again!
    1. Re:What is it? by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Funny

      The agent takes you out to see a movie, buys you dinner and then gets frisky. Without the movie and dinner.

    2. Re:What is it? by nautsch · · Score: 2

      Is it really that hard to search wikipedia?

      --
      If you find a typo, you may keep it.
    3. Re:What is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Going to second base.

    4. Re:What is it? by Buchenskjoll · · Score: 0

      What's Wikipedia? No, the phrase just seemed so generic, that I didn't think I would get the right meaning by googling it. Now I have read the Wikipedia article, but I didn't find it that helpful. I had to go to other sources to find out how much touching is involved. Is "pat down" really the official phrase?

      --
      -- Make America hate again!
    5. Re:What is it? by hackula · · Score: 1

      Last month I lost my wallet in the cab on my way to la guardia. I found that you CAN fly without an ID, but the TSA will make it very uncomfortable for you. The pat down is pretty much what you would expect I guess. They pat all over your body, run their hand up your crack, grope your package, run their hand around your waistband (which I thought was the creepiest part), then send you on your way. It was done professionally, and I would do it again to get through, but it definitely was a bit invasive and creepy. I would have been a lot more disturbed by it if the TSA agent did not look like he was having the worst time in his life as he did it. Slightly different body language and it would get weird quick. The only thing that really makes me angry about it is that I totally still could have smuggled something through, even with the heightened security around me at the time. It might be justifiable if it was actually going to be effective, instead it was just inconvenient and uncomfortable.

    6. Re:What is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      third base

  11. "Just let strangers touch you, honey" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ok, the new paradigm has arrived and we all need to teach our kids and grandkids that it is OK if strangers touch you...even "down there" because it's for the good of the country.

    1. Re:"Just let strangers touch you, honey" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Spread your legs for your country, little girl.

    2. Re:"Just let strangers touch you, honey" by Zsub · · Score: 4, Informative

      The truth of your comment makes me cry with despair.

    3. Re:"Just let strangers touch you, honey" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Just close your eyes and think of England."

    4. Re:"Just let strangers touch you, honey" by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      On the flipside, we're creating jobs! I anxiously await "Ron Jeremy's Barely Legal TSA Patdown Party 7".

    5. Re:"Just let strangers touch you, honey" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spread your legs and think of england^H^H^H^H^H^H^HUSA

    6. Re:"Just let strangers touch you, honey" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like "Barely Potty-Trained TSA Patdown Party".

    7. Re:"Just let strangers touch you, honey" by houghi · · Score: 1

      Please mod parent up. It is more insightful then it is funny.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  12. TSA by amoeba1911 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Keeping you safe from 4 year old girls and their grandmothers since 2001.

    1. Re:TSA by hackula · · Score: 1

      Right after 9/11 I took a flight. There was this "shady" looking guy sitting in one of the seats at the terminal. He was wearing a hoody, kind of hiding his face, and he looked a bit strung out. Being so soon after 9/11, everyone was a little on edge and looking at this guy. A couple TSA agents came around to pick out a random person to pat down and search further. Everyone was kind of relieved, because it was obvious they were going to search the shady guy...except they picked the little old lady with the tennis bag sitting next to him. The entire time, everyone at the terminal was looking around at each other whispering "wtf?!". It just takes a tiny amount of common sense. Sorry to profile, but old ladies do not keep bombs in tennis bags...period.

    2. Re:TSA by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I'd say it would have been correct behavioral profiling to go after the guy in the hoodie.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say it would have been correct behavioral profiling to go after the guy in the hoodie.

      Yep. Probably a nigger.

  13. This doesn't seem that bad IMO... by Nailer235 · · Score: 0, Troll

    I'm normally as anti-TSA as they come, but I actually think that this patdown was more reasonable than the title suggests. From what I can gather about the facts, first the little girl went through security. Then, while the grandmother was waiting to get a patdown, the little girl ran up to her grandmother and hugged her. That seems like it would be a pretty damn good way to pass off contraband. I mean, I understand that this WAS a four-year old girl getting a patdown, but you have to remember that this four-year old girl was traveling with an adult who had control over her. It's not hard to imagine scenarios in which terrorists use children as mules. I think that this case is an example where the TSA actually did their job properly - some TSA agent noticed something that to the untrained eye would have been an ordinary hug, but very plausibly could have been a pre-planned ploy to sneak contraband into the airport. Maybe the TSA could have approached the child more reasonably and given her more time to cool off, but overall I think that a patdown was justified.

    1. Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... by eddy · · Score: 1

      It's not hard to imagine scenarios in which terrorists use children as mules.

      Blink

      --
      Belief is the currency of delusion.
    2. Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got to be kidding....

      You're actually trying to excuse this because she "might have been handing off contraband" to her grandma?

      WHAT. THE. FUCK.

      What kind of contraband could possibly be worth groping a four year old girl? What is wrong with you?

    3. Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No.
      Just no.

      If we've really gotten to the point where our fear justifies injustices such as these, the terrorists have been more successful than they ever dreamed.
      The TSA has been proven ineffective. The methods and technologies they employ to "protect us" by invading our privacy have proven ineffective. Why is this still a discussion?

    4. Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Pass contraband'. But why go through all that trouble when you could just... I dunno, just use TSA employees directly

      Look, In all seriousness, how do we shut these guys down, defund them, stop these asinine patdown procedures, -anything-. I have yet to hear -one- single good story about anybodys experience with these goons, and that's not a good sign about how this agency is being run. Theft of equipment, drug dealing, molesting children 'in accordance with policy', it all smacks of an agency running by the seat of their pants and at the very least having some very bad employee screening processes, let alone with the main issue of violating our freedom to be secure in our persons and free from (what is without a doubt!) unreasonable search (and seizure).

    5. Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > What kind of contraband could possibly be worth groping a four year old girl?

      TNT? hand grenades? thermite device? bag of anthrax spores? Basically the same kind of contraband that would make it worth groping anybody else...duh.

    6. Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... by fa2k · · Score: 0

      TSA actually did their job properly - some TSA agent noticed something that to the untrained eye would have been an ordinary hug, but very plausibly could have been a pre-planned ploy to sneak contraband into the airport. Maybe the TSA could have approached the child more reasonably and given her more time to cool off, but overall I think that a patdown was justified.

      Indeed, the agents should be suspicious when people move through the checkpoint without authorisation. I too doubt that terrorists would have a moral objection to using children, so the only problem is the agent's lack of ability to deal well with children, not his actions. This is of course only valid if you accept the premise that the tactics of TSA helps improve security, but that's not what people are complaining about here.

    7. Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... by thelexx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "It's not hard to imagine scenarios"

      That is the problem. That right there.

      I choose not to live in fear.

      Fear is the mind killer. Or society in this case.

      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
    8. Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... by deanklear · · Score: 5, Insightful

      but I'm a business traveler and know how these things look.

      You're defending the molestation of a four year old girl because the government thought she was a threat to national security because she wanted to say goodbye to her grandmother. This is one of those McCarthy era moments where I have to ask, do you have any sense of decency or shred of humanity left in your body? Or do you really believe that molesting children and the elderly makes you safer? Even if we pretend that's true, why in the hell do you find that acceptable?

      The threats we should accept as the price to live in a free and open society are tiny in comparison to the injustice of living in a militarized police state. Giving the government more power to molest, imprison, search, and detain people with impunity are the real dangers to our democracy, not the memory of a single terrorist attack 10 years ago. We have locks on the cockpit doors. We have Air Marshals in the cabin. We can retain some reasonable security checkpoints. But when your society tells you that it's acceptable for an adult to put their hands all over a child because they are a threat to national security, you can be damn sure you don't live in a free and rational society.

      I also travel for business, and I would rather die in a terrorist attack than live in a police state where people who want to travel are subject to molestation.

    9. Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the TSA lets children go through security checkpoints without being properly checked, the terrorists will somehow find a child and wire them up with a bomb.

    10. Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... by Wovel · · Score: 1

      Read the article.

    11. Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... by Wovel · · Score: 1

      Seriously. The article is not that long. Could have saved you from writing both of you misinformed posts.

    12. Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... by Wovel · · Score: 1

      Except it is based on a completely false assumption that came from never bothering to read the article. It was a reaction to the other comments and not the article itself. It was designed to elicit a response from other readers and not enhance the discussion. It is in fact a very obvious troll.

    13. Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2

      I used to travel for business, but then I posted on the internet about how I would rather die in a terrorist attack than live in a police state where people who want to travel are subject to molestation.

      FTFY. See, I don't travel for business, and I wouldn't take a job where travelling to the US would be mandatory because I outright refuse to kowtow to your outrageous border policies. No, you shouldn't live in fear of your government, but you actually have something to lose by pissing them off. I do not, as I've already resigned myself to never return to America. Being put on their No Fly list is moot; the USA is on mine.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    14. Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... by stevencbrown · · Score: 1

      why not just make them BOTH go back through the scanner?

    15. Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... by Lord+of+Hyphens · · Score: 1

      I know I'm summoning the "black helicopters" with this statement, but since the security checkpoints are crowded and insecure, why not rig up a bomb to go off in the checkpoint, killing/injuring thirty to forty people and sowing panic? You probably wouldn't even have to make it be a suicide bombing (although that particular tactic with a vest of C4 and nails would stand the best chance of success). Such an attack, made at enough airports within a similar timeframe would likely cripple air travel more than the TSA already has.

      --
      "I've spent my whole life figuring out crazy ways to do things. It'll work." -- Montgomery Scott, "Relics"
    16. Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go away TSA shill

    17. Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever tried to "pre-plan" a ploy to hand off contraband with a 4-year-old? Have you ever tried to get a four-year-old to go to bed? Yeah. Didn't think so.

    18. Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... by Nailer235 · · Score: 1

      A lot of people are misunderstanding the OP. The fact that someone sneaks past security justifies searching them. Similarly, the fact that someone in the terminal has contact with someone outside of the terminal, justifies searching both of those people. In both of those situations, there is a valid reason to perform at least some search. The OP is NOT talking about how much authorityTSA should have in general, who searches should be performed on, or how searches should be performed. In other words, the OP was NOT saying that, as a matter of everyday security, we should patdown four-year old girls. The OP IS saying that the specific circumstances OF THIS CASE justified at least some extra scrutiny. For a community that purports to be news for nerds, it sure does have an abundance of people who are incapable of independent thought/reasoning.

    19. Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... by Nailer235 · · Score: 1

      Lofty language devoid of any substance - and of course people mod it as insightful. So you're saying that if someone brings a gun on an airplane we shouldn't care? What about a grenade? Other explosives? You chose not to live in fear, after all.

    20. Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... by thelexx · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, yes. That's OBVIOUSLY exactly what I was saying. Guns, bombs...pshaw. Nerve gas and radioactive material should be allowed too. After all, what's to be afraid of? LOL

      Fucking dumbass.

      "Lofty language." - A couple of hundred years from now your descendents will probably think that mine talk 'gay' too. Go back to greeting people at Costco.

      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
    21. Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      In the 1920s and 30s it wasn't too hard for the average Italian, Spaniard or German to imagine a scenario where radical communists would plunge the nation in chaos. They were out there on the streets marching.

      Of course we all know how that turned out.

      Mart

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    22. Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

      I was with you right until you used "reasonable" and "Then, while the grandmother was waiting to get a patdown" in the same paragraph.

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    23. Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The TSA has been proven ineffective. The methods and technologies they employ to "protect us" by invading our privacy have proven ineffective.

      Yet Obama's supporters still insist the TSA is great, or that somehow he isn't responsible for their actions even though he's the head of the Executive Branch.

      And in November, either Obama or Romney will be elected, and either way there won't be any change. Great job, voters!

    24. Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey if she doesnt like it she doesnt have to live is the USA.
      kid can always immigrate with her grandparents (after being groped goodbye, naturally).
      besides its really hard to get a job as a pedo these days in the USA. pedos need jobs too. think of the pedos.

    25. Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Being put on their No Fly list is moot; the USA is on mine.

      Because your countries "border" policies are so much better? I admit that USA's policies are pretty stupid sometimes (like the whole fiingerprinting everyone) But the USA doesn't have a monopoly on security theatre. You can see it in about every airport in the world. I saw a girl lose her pocket knife in Ukraine. I was only allowed one bag in heathrow, and had to take my shoes off. I Brazil I was question about my timing system. Not because of all the wires, but because the tripod on it was sort of kind of maybe sharp (a dull pencil was sharper)

    26. Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      I'm normally as anti-TSA as they come, but I actually think that this patdown was more reasonable than the title suggests. .

      What?????
      NO patdown is reasonable. Zero, zilch, none.

    27. Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... by Alioth · · Score: 1

      It's not that the TSA did it, but the attitude they take in doing it.

      There was no justification for yelling, calling the child a "suspect" or the rest of it. If they handled it with sensitivity instead of having a huge attitude problem, then this story would never have blown up in their faces.

      TSA agents seem to like to behave like NCOs shouting at privates in the Army. Why do they have to always be so agressive? In other countries, airport security are polite, don't raise their voices, say please and thank you and as a result you don't get these situations. If you need to search a child there are ways to do it which don't upset the child. However, every TSA officer seems to think they are a military policeman and can just shout at people and order them around.

    28. Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, every TSA officer seems to think they are a military policeman and can just shout at people and order them around.

      They think it because it's true.

    29. Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

      Why don't you just spare yourself the all fretful suspense, and step in front of a train?

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
  14. Ridicurous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'd compare this to disproportionate use of military force. You don't need a carrier strike group against a suspected row boat attack. Clearly their focus is on harassing citizens in stead of real threats. I wouldn't be surprised if the next 4 yo to be patted down smacks the TSA agent in the face and is charged with assault and interviewd under the spot lights.

  15. Missing the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the agents are pedophiles, the supervisors are thieves and the ones pointing out flaws in the system are unemployed ...and the architects are multi-millionaires.

  16. Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So what? The cockpit door is locked and the rest of the passengers won't let anyone hijack the plane anymore anyway.

  17. Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    You should RTFA which you clearly didn't.

    It's not a case of never screening children. The child had passed the metal detector once, but after that she had contact with her grandmother who hadn't been screened yet, so she had to be screened again. For some reason just sending her through the metal detector again wasn't enough, which makes no sense as it was clearly good enough the first time.

  18. Re:Little brat by NeverSuchBefore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't see how my civil liberties are being violated when boarding a plane; everyone should have the same equal protections and confidence that each and every passenger is not going try and hurt anyone on the plane

    You don't see how civil liberties and privacy are being violated when you're forced to be patted down and searched when trying to travel?

    If you're so scared of terrorists, never leave your house. There is no right to feel safe at the expense of everyone's freedom and privacy. Not only that, but increased cockpit security and civilian awareness of the consequences of plane hijackings is more than enough.

  19. Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you fucking retarded or something? Do you really believe that?

  20. They have won by MDillenbeck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think the terrorists have gotten more then they have lost. We live in fear, giving up our rights and freedoms in order to gain the illusion of "security". Then again, this is a police state's wet dream - a passive, docile, and accepting population who never question. (Meaning population as a whole, we know there are plenty of individuals and small organizations that do question the state.)

    1. Re:They have won by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2

      OBL himself stated in interview WAY before 2001 that the US was too big to attack directly, and must be destroyed from within. Bush on his big boat with the "Mission Accomplished" banner was just a joke; OBL was "Mission Accomplished" on 12/09/2001.

      You're an ignorant fool if you think otherwise.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:They have won by nonades · · Score: 1

      > (Meaning population as a whole, we know there are plenty of individuals and small organizations that do question the state.) You mean Terrorists, right?

    3. Re:They have won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What did he do on December 9th?

    4. Re:They have won by jkflying · · Score: 1

      ... because in this day and age of millisecond communication times the month is more important than the day?

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    5. Re:They have won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the government won. They are now more powerful than ever.

      See, it's like Star Wars right before our eyes (as if it wasn't briefly discussed when the prequel trilogy came about)

      The government (indirectly or directly, depending on your take on things) helped OBL rise to power back in the Cold War, just like how the Sith orchestrated the Trade Federation and the whole Separatist movement, giving the government an excuse to militarize and increase its powers.

      9/11 was like the "Jedi attempt on the Palpatine's life" thing, the event that triggered the transition of America into the Galactic Empire.

      Also consider the following: Samuel L Jackson portrayed Mace Windu, who was involved in the "Jedi attempt on Palpatine's life" event. Jackson would later star in the movie Snakes on a Plane, and clearly planes were used in 9/11. It's no coincidence, I'm trained in the ways of the Colbert Code!

      For all the things Lucas did to his franchise which makes fans cry, his overall message is actually quite insightful

    6. Re:They have won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They realized that to be in power you didn't need guns, or money or even numbers. You just needed the will to do what the other guy wouldn't."
      -- Quote from The Usual Suspects, 1995

    7. Re:They have won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucked a camel.

  21. Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. by TonyJohn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Read the article. The complaint (at least from the family) is about the manner in which the agents approached the task rather than the task itself.

    --
    Owl tried to think of something wise to say, but couldn't.
  22. Re:Little brat by anomaly256 · · Score: 1

    Yeah because drug mules so often try to hijack airplanes instead of trying to lay low and not attract attention to themselves. Also a gropedown doesn't detect internal objects, which is how said drug mules do it - swallowing condoms of substance. Any other method gets picked up by dogs pretty damned quick

  23. Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about using just a modicom of common sense. As in re-screening the little girl after grandmother is cleared, using the first method non invasive message?

    Or a bit of common sense and screenign the grandmother and letting them go their marry way? After all it's just a little bit unlikely that they could transfer a device capable of bringing down a plane between the two of them in a brief hugging episode?

  24. May we not drop this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    with security agents yelling and calling the crying girl an uncooperative suspect

    "Let us not assassinate this lad further...; you've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
    - Army counsel Joseph Welch to Senator Joseph McCarthy, June 9th, 1954

  25. Re:Little brat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People have been known to mule all sort of things up their assholes and vaginas. Therefore, everyone should get a free cavity search (women get a two-for-one of course) before being allowed through security. As long as EVERYONE is probled I don't have a problem with it. This should of course also include staff. Get up in there and have a good feel'around!

  26. Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, you just put a lower age limit on aircraft passengers. Babies and young children can be very disruptive to other passengers - babies crying and young children getting bored at having to sit in their seat during the journey. So if they wish to travel, go by car or ship or perhaps train (though even on a train, children can be disruptive).

  27. TSA is a 100% failure by Coolhand2120 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The only agency with a well known 100% failure rate. 100% of the terrorist that we know of that tried to get through TSA security were able to get through and detonate their devices. The TSA's response is to add proven useless and potentially deadly scanners, and create new checkpoints at highway and post offices. These people are worse than useless. They take from the tax payers on so many levels that the monetary loss is the least of our concern. Give us our freedom back you assholes.

    1. Re:TSA is a 100% failure by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 2

      Give us our freedom back you assholes.

      Asking nicely has never worked. If it's freedom you want, you have to take it and then you have to defend it.

      "Lest we forget"

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    2. Re:TSA is a 100% failure by gizmo_mathboy · · Score: 2

      Not to defend the lameass TSA, but no devices have been detonated under the TSA's watch.

      That being said at least 2 instances there have been explosives on planes. The TSA didn't stop them passengers did.

      I would say they haven't stopped a single, serious threat in their existence.

      Nowadays a bomber won't target the planes, the bomber will target the lines at the security checkpoints.

      The rest of your post I can 100% agree with.

    3. Re:TSA is a 100% failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The only agency with a well known 100% failure rate. 100% of the terrorist that we know of that tried to get through TSA security were able to get through and detonate their devices.

      I haven't heard of any terrorists passing through TSA screening (of course I haven't heard of them catching any terrorists either and their security audit record is abysmal).

      If you're referring to the shoe bomber or the underwear bomber, if I recall correctly, both of them were flying into the US. So you really can't pin that on the TSA.

      Just sayin'.

    4. Re:TSA is a 100% failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, 100%, but I don't know of any, let alone how many were stopped. And they wouldn't report it either.

      Don't get me wrong, I don't like the TSA but your claim, doesn't add up.

    5. Re:TSA is a 100% failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Post offices? You do remember the people that died and all the buildings shut down and had to go through years of costly decontamination to remove anthrax spores? But if you're not talking about the mail scanners, I haven't heard of new post office security. What else is the TSA doing there?

    6. Re:TSA is a 100% failure by Coolhand2120 · · Score: 1

      Underwear bomber, shoe bomber. Both were able to detonate their devices but the devices failed.

    7. Re:TSA is a 100% failure by Coolhand2120 · · Score: 1

      Underwear bomber, shoe bomber. Both were able to detonate their devices but the devices failed fully detonate. The devices were set alight, just poorly designed. Which speaks volumes of the intelligence required to bypass the TSA. I'm not sure what we had to do with stopping the events from occurring. Only dumb luck, or a dumb fuck, saved the lives of the people on either flight.

    8. Re:TSA is a 100% failure by Coolhand2120 · · Score: 1
  28. They're batting a 1000... by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
    1. Re:They're batting a 1000... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF is the point of bringing someone back from air side where they can have already removed the weaponry from their walking aids and passed it to an accomplice?

      Everyone knows if you really want to get something dangerous to air side you recruit someone with an airside pass or get a job in one of the shops there to get a pass (this part does need a clean background check). Then receive deliveries and pass them on to accomplices. Even if your accomplices are already selected for enhanced screening they are clean at that point and then collect their gear (before being jumped on the plane by passengers when they actually try something). Actually those TSA jobs in the US might be quite good ones to get people into if trying to get contraband through.

      If airport security really was important they would remove all the shops from air side at the terminals and only allow vending machines for drinks (harder to deliver the liquid explosive to the right person although not impossible). That will never happen though as the airports make money from that.

  29. Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

    You're right, there is historical precedent for using little kids with grenades and similar incidents. I believe the concern in this case was that the woman might have passed the child a gun or something to try to evade the screening. The question here is why the TSO does not have the initiative or leeway to make a judgement call about a situation before it escalates into a scene where they threaten to shut down the airport because of a crying child. Security doesn't come from a bunch of rigid bureaucratic rules, it comes from an exercise of intelligence, observation, and experience. If the rules are the only thing that matters then those terrorists will just exploit the inevitable gaps. There's already plenty of holes in the procedures. And as other have pointed out, a security measure does not have to be applied 100% of the time in all situations to be effective, it just has to be likely enough to interfere to force the plotter to try something else. There aren't enough suicide bomber volunteers that they can afford to gamble on a security measure that is merely inconsistent.

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  30. So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gangs use little kids to commit crimes all the time (drug dealing, stealing, b-and-e, etc.). But I'm supposed to believe what a bunch of liberal lemmings' looking for a fight with the government have to say - that terrorists have such superior morals they would never conceive to conceal their tools of violence on the body of a child? Whatever.

    1. Re:So what? by flirno · · Score: 1

      Considering the failure rate of the detectors, they don't need to use designated child carriers. The real safety factor is that civilians will get in their face if they try anything in the flight cabin now.

    2. Re:So what? by residieu · · Score: 1

      Are we really worried about a bomb small enough that a little girl could have taken it from an adult and kept it hidden after a brief hug?

  31. Ah yes, because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... we all know of those terrorists who use children to blow people up.

    The hell? Isn't the religions of these extremist nutjobs a whole case of "suicide gets you laid in heaven" or some nonsense?
    What they'd actually be doing is direct murder if they used a child to blow up a plane. (as opposed to indirect murder when a bomb exploded that killed people)

    And this is why I will never travel to America, over it, under it or whatever other forms of it exist. Not even to claim an actual fortune in money.

    Their idiotic fault for not enforcing proper security, the little girl shouldn't have been able to come back through if it was done right.

  32. They're terrorists...the TSA I mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    4 year old terrorists and grandmothers. That's what we should be afraid of!

  33. Good thing the terrorists are idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If the terrorists were smart, they'd just kill TSA stooges, too-big to fail bank executives, and congress critters. The rest of the country would be happy to meet their demands out of sheer gratitude.

  34. Re:Little brat by Coolhand2120 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You are less than human. You are like the dog shit that gets stuck between the ridges on the bottom of my shoe. Read the damn article. The TSA agent was yelling at the little kid causing the problem in the first place. People like you make me sick. You think that just because there's a security protocol people stop being human beings? I guess your plan would be to explain to the 4 year old about the birds and the bees with a nice little pedobear patdown? Get a life scumbag.

  35. go ahead and close the airport by jbmartin6 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From a related article "One officer even told the girl's mother that the airport would have to be shut down and every flight cancelled if the four-year-old did not co-operate" My reaction to this was, yeah go ahead and close the airport because of a crying little girl TSA, let me dial that number for you.

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  36. Stupid by neyla · · Score: 1

    I'm still waiting for the first bomb to go off in the security-checkpoint-waiting-line. At which point they'd need a checkpoint to check the passengers prior to the security-checkpoint-waiting-line, but offcourse this new checkpoint would also get a line, whereafter a bomb goes off in the waiting-line for *this* checkpoint repeat as necessary.

    This bullshit is a *much* larger threat to both life and freedom than terrorists ever where. People fly 900 million trips a year (that's USA only), thus if every one of them spend 5 minutes extra in the security-theatre, that means more than 100 lifetimes are wasted standing in line every year. That's without considering the resources used, and the costs incurred, and the other inconveniences resulting.

    Thus the TSA has almost certainly killed more people than they've saved.

    1. Re:Stupid by mario_grgic · · Score: 1

      That's easy to solve. Just put a checkpoint in every American's house.

      --
      As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
    2. Re:Stupid by runeghost · · Score: 1

      That's not even counting the number of highway deaths among people who drove rather than flew in order to avoid the TSA.

    3. Re:Stupid by __aasdno7518 · · Score: 1

      That's easy to solve. Just put a checkpoint in every American's house.

      Shhhh,don't give hem ideas!

    4. Re:Stupid by rusl · · Score: 1

      Get on it you commies.... er, no I mean... Islamofascists lurking in the closet! Why don't you bomb the lineup already!?

      Those guys are a serious let down. $1Trillion dollars on the military every year and all we get are IEDs in the countries we are invading. Unreliable. Gotta take 'em out. Same as Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden. Those guys wimped out. How are we supposed to have a war against evil if all you do is hide in an apartment watching TV for 9 years. Getting executed by seal team 6 (judge jury and executioner biatchez!!!) was the most exciting thing to happen to him in a decade. Loser.

      --
      Stupidity is its own reward.
  37. Say What by snowcat1964 · · Score: 2

    The TSA has now shown they are just an organization of child molesters. How can they justify molesting a 4 year old. If anybody else performed this action they would be arrested and thrown into jail.

  38. Nothing more then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TSA "agents" are nothing more then prison guard monkeys!!! They only do as they are taught.

    Welcome to the new America ladies and gentlemen, land of the not-so-free and home of the suckers!

  39. Re:Little brat by davmoo · · Score: 2

    I realize this quote is way overused these days, but its worth repeating here. Ol' Ben Franklin said it best..."Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    --
    I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
  40. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you don't believe she was "innocent"? How many 4 year old jihadists do you know?

    As long as there are enough people like you willing to put up with stupidity then things like this will continue. Maybe the grandmother did break the rules, but she wasn't on a plane trying to open an emergency exit, she was in the middle of all those security agents hugging her 4 year old grand daughter who was upset by getting molested by the TSA.

    At some point common sense say "She just stepped out of line... but that's her four year old grand daughter crying - as a thinking adult I can see how this may not be a terrorist attack."

  41. On the other hand by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    You are no longer in danger of a 4 year old suicide bomber trying to take over the plane with a pair of plastic scissors.

    See? Everybody is complaining that the government is always trying to solve the last problem as opposed to thinking of the next one. Well, obviously the TSA have put some thought into this and they concluded that the next likely attempt at hijacking and blowing up a plane will be done by 4 year old religious fundamentalist girls.

  42. Israel contradicts that. by khasim · · Score: 1

    Terrorists in Israel often attack buses and restaurants.

    Even in America, a couple guys with a rifle can terrorize an entire city.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks

  43. Fellow passengers are your best defense by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Perhaps it's time the TSA realized that no planeload of passengers is ever again going to quietly allow anyone to take over an aircraft. If we assume that there are fewer terrorists than defenders on the aircraft, and that all have been through a metal detector, the chances are pretty damn good that an aircraft full of uncooperative passengers can and will subdue any reasonable number of attackers, even if they have hostages and even if they have knives.

    If TSA were to mount a publicity campaign to encourage fighting back (in the appropriate circumstances, of course), the odds would be even further improved.

    But that would make far too much sense, and nobody would get rich selling useless tech to the government...

    1. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You think they don't know that? The TSA is not some collection of informed rules being constructed by reasonable minds -- it's a wrecking ball whose only mission is "protection at all costs" and all decisions are being made by people who fear losing their jobs more than they fear a terrorist attack. When advocating for rehabilitation instead of punishment is a "soft on crime" position and advocating a responsible global policy of power protection is a "soft on defense" position then advocating for a reasonable set of security procedures at checkpoints is "soft on terrorism." We can't just try to /teach/ the TSA. That's impossible at this point. We need something that shows the people that the TSA /is/ terrorism if we want to rein it in. At least, that's the world we live in right now.

    2. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You do understand, right, that since the take-over-the-plane-with-knives-and-use-plane-as-missle attacks on 9/11, we've had multiple attempts to simply destroy the aircraft in-flight. The more dangerous of those was obviously given a little more thought, and included attempting to do so while on approach over a large city. You know, in an attempt to kill hundreds or thousands of people. The only thing that prevented it from happening was the degree to which the suicide bomber was nervous, sweating, and thus damaging his explosive device. Had he not sweated his bomb into being non-functional, his fellow passengers would have had absolutely no chance to subdue, defend, or even stop to think about things. They'd be dead.

      The issue at the airport was that there was a chance for an adult who had not been screened to do something like stash an explosive device in the clothes of the kid who had already been screened. The person with access to the kid had not been screened. The perfect way to use the kid as an unwitting mule until the adult caught up with the kid again onboard. The odds of an adult family member actually using a kid this way? Very slim. The odds of an adult being willing to die and take other people with them? Not zero. The SOP of not allowing any pre-screened people to physically interact with post-screened people about to board an aircraft? Makes perfect sense. They could have handled this particular screaming kid more gracefully.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by nanoflower · · Score: 1

      I think they know this. They just aren't going to allow it to change their procedures because that would mean losing jobs and power. No agency is ever going to willingly give up power. The only way the TSA is really going to change is when the public demands it and Congress forces the TSA to change.

    4. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... even if they have hostages and even if they have knives.

      I totally agree, from the safety of my computer terminal many thousands of miles away from the US.

      Now, hands up who volunteers to be the first one to get to the hijacker, more than likely to be mortally wounded, so that the rest may live.

      Anybody?

      We're too scared to say "No." to a barely competent security guard when he demands to manhandle a 4 year old. What makes you think we'll actually try and stop a plane hijacking? I can't help but think that this is armchair quarterbacking at its finest, as much as I hate to say it.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    5. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by noh8rz3 · · Score: 2

      i agree with this, but no big deal, the TSA agents could have had a heart or some sensibility. Just run the kid through again. perhaps run the parent through first (as should have been done in the first place) to make sure there's somebody there to catch the kid when she comes out. security rules can be enforced in a sensible manner without pulling a screaming kid from her mother and patting her down. stranger danger! seriously, have a heart and some common sense and there will be 99% fewer problems.

    6. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by toriver · · Score: 1

      "Multiple" as in: two. Heck, there have been far more situations where overly drunk passengers have tried to open the plane door in flight, but they still don't ban drunk idiots on the planes.

    7. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet through all of this TSA has stopped per their own statistics 0 attacks in 10 years.

    8. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by sycodon · · Score: 1

      I think security would be much better if TSA handed out .45 semi-autos when boarding the aircraft.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    9. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A better way to kill hundreds of people with a bomb carried through the airport security station?

      Set it off while waiting in line.

      Plane bombs are so last century.

    10. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have a very good grip of history. The event that caused this whole fiasco ended with a bunch of passengers fighting back.

      So what makes us think we'll actually try to stop a plane hijacking? The fact that we have.

    11. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Then can you explain why in several recent bombing attempts, pretty much the first thing to happen is that passengers immediately start kicking/punching the shit out of the person concerned?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid#Bombing_attempt_on_American_Airlines_Flight_63
      "The 6 foot 4 inch (193 cm) tall, 200+ pound (90+ kg) Reid was next subdued by several passengers on the airliner, and then bound up using plastic handcuffs, seatbelt extensions, and headphone cords."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab#Attack
      "Fellow passenger Jasper Schuringa, a Dutch film director, jumped on Abdulmutallab and subdued him as flight attendants used fire extinguishers to douse the flames."

      http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16197541
      "When the captain attempted to enter the locked cockpit, he was subdued by passengers."
      (not a bomber, but still the same concept)

    12. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by TBedsaul · · Score: 1

      I can give you a concrete example of how you're wrong. I'll point you to the passengers of flight 93 on Septembet 11th, 2001.

      Once they found they weren;t on the standard "free trip to Cuba" that hijackings were though to be before that day, they seemed to be quite willing to stand up for themselves, even if it meant their lives.

    13. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      A better way to kill hundreds of people ... Plane bombs are so last century.

      You're misunderstanding who the audience is for such attacks. This is about look-what-we-can-do street cred back in the Middle East. Just killing a bunch of people on the ground is every-day stuff in that region. Suicide bombers kill people outside police stations, in vegetable markets, etc., all the time. They want lots of media material that includes, hopefully, a scene of a multi-million dollar aircraft falling out of the sky in flames. That feels more powerful, as implies more influence and capability. It's about the media visuals, not the head count.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    14. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by gman003 · · Score: 1

      Now, hands up who volunteers to be the first one to get to the hijacker, more than likely to be mortally wounded, so that the rest may live.

      *raises hand*

      Day fucking ONE of the "War on Terror", people knew that if the terrorists take control of the plane, not only are you pretty much dead already, you're actually guaranteeing *more* people die. Remember the fourth plane?

      People will go for it. And I'll be one of them, if necessary. Because better to go down fighting than be killed like a coward.

      (best strategy, of course, is to try to coordinate so several people attack at once, but even if nobody else would follow, I'd go)

    15. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      And one was trying to light his shoe on fire...with a match...in a low oxygen environment.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    16. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by isorox · · Score: 3, Informative

      ... even if they have hostages and even if they have knives.

      I totally agree, from the safety of my computer terminal many thousands of miles away from the US.

      Now, hands up who volunteers to be the first one to get to the hijacker, more than likely to be mortally wounded, so that the rest may live.
       

      Recent attempts at bringing down aircraft in the western world:
      * Shoe Bomber
      * Underpants Bomber
      * Heathrow plot with the liquids

      Recent attempts at bringing down aircraft in the western world which weren't caught by the new at-airport policies
      * Shoe Bomber
      * Underpants Bomber
      * Heathrow plot with the liquids

      Recent attempts at bringing down aircraft in the western world which were stopped by passengers and crew on board
      * Shoe Bomber
      * Underpants Bomber

      Recent attempts at bringing down aircraft in the western world which were stopped by intelligence services
      * Heathrow plot with the liquids

      Recent items confiscated from me at the airport
      * Bottle of water
      * Gaffer tape (Both Delhi and Manchester, UK)

    17. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say plane four on 9/11 already proved that it would happen.

    18. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, hands up who volunteers to be the first one to get to the hijacker, more than likely to be mortally wounded, so that the rest may live.

      Here. My wife would probably be on board. Fair trade.

      I'm not exactly the strongest, but I'm about the right body type for it. On the big side, but not so bulky that I wouldn't have some room to weave in the aisle. Getting into the aisle, out of the seat would be the first step. Announcing the hoarde has decided for a regime change would be second. It probably wouldn't ge that elegent. More along the lines of "get them". Try to get him in the aisle, hope my fellow passengers in the seats will at least grab at him or something. And the primary goal is grab the fucking knife. If all he has is a box cutter. Geeze, that would take hours to be lethal, just bum rush him. I'd get cut to hell, but basic first aid can save someone from blood loss. I doubt he'd get to vital organs with just a box cutter.

    19. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's Roll.

      'nuff said.

    20. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC here, but I'm a real, single person hiding behind some anon tech that probably won't work...

      >>Now, hands up who volunteers to be the first one to get to the hijacker, more than likely to be mortally wounded, so that the rest may live.

      Me. I'll do it. And I doubt I'll be mortally wounded (though possible). My family, friends, and fellow Americans are on that plane - you bet your ass I'm in. Oh, and I won't be raising my hand - I'll be to busy taking care of business while you're counting votes. And, while we're at it, I'm not special - I bet the majority of my fellow fliers are doing the same thing. Maybe not you, but we will.

      >>We're too scared to say "No." to a barely competent security guard when he demands to manhandle a 4 year old. What makes you think we'll actually try and stop a plane hijacking?
      Big Sis and Co. will put you in jail, take your livelihood, ruin your future, etc. all with the law on their side. The way I see it, I've got a better shot at a knife wielding terrorist.

    21. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Amtrak · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming you are referring to the Underwear bomber above so ignore me if I'm wrong, but you do realize that Northwest Airlines Flight 253 originated from Amsterdam? The TSA had nothing to do with the failure to detect the bomb in our would be suicide bomber's panties. Besides, that was more the Terrorists, extremists or what ever we are calling them this week finding a weak point and exploiting it. The truth is that unless we all want to strip down naked, throw our cloths in an incinerator, walk through some observation room where we are scanned, then fully body cavity searched, and then put on the given approved TSA flight robe we will never stop all plots to blow up a plane. And even then whats to stop some really ambitious Terrorist from doing something crazy like releasing a ton of Geese around the run way was an airplane is landing, or drive a van full of explosives onto the loading gate and detonate it, or get an inside man into baggage handling and place a bomb in the cargo department of a plane, or even God forbid somehow get a shoulder launched rocket and pick the planes off on approach. You can never eliminate all risk if you really want to do that you have to stop living because risk of death is 100%. Now I do agree that the girl in question should have never been allowed to make contact with someone who has not completed the security screening after she has completed it.This is a failure of TSA's crowd control procedures and to cover their asses they went overboard and gave the girl a pat down. They should have put her back through the metal detector/scanner and been done with it, or even better yet not let the girl re-enter the screening area. I mean how hard is it to put up a plexi-glass wall with a one way metal gate like on a subway platform It's a hell of a lot cheaper than those stupid scanners they are installing.

    22. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by internerdj · · Score: 1

      I'll throw my hand into the mix. The (only) nice thing about the rules is that you didn't make it on to the plane with anything deadlier than what I have to make deadly.

    23. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by internerdj · · Score: 1

      As much as I believe in self-defense, for reasons of cabin pressure and the chance of a stray bullet incapacitating the cockpit crew behind an unaccessable door, I'd prefer even well meaning passengers did not carry a loaded firearm.

    24. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong here. When the shoe bomber tried to blow up the plane, the passengers beat the crap out of him. Same with underwear bomber. When you might literally die, you will attack the terrorist. The security guard will just make your life hell and then you will be no better off at the end of the day. Resistance is futile. However, in the case of a terrorist, resistance might save your and maybe your loved ones life. That's why I like travelling with a MacBook Pro. nice heavy aluminium case.

    25. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Now, hands up who volunteers to be the first one to get to the hijacker, more than likely to be mortally wounded, so that the rest may live.
      Fuck, I'd do it. You aren't exactly comparing apples to apples, in a hijacking situation these days there are going to be multiple people on a plane who look at the situation and boil it down to this:

      A. Definitely die in a crash while sitting in my seat like a frightened rabbit
      B. Possibly die while trying to defend my own life

      More then a few people are going to choose B over A.

      While it's awful that people will stand around and watch a rent-a-cop manhandle a 4 year old, that situation doesn't exactly threaten their lives either. I think people would be much less apathetic when it's their own lives that are about to end.

      AC because I don't have a Slashdot account.

    26. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it's time the TSA realized that no planeload of passengers is ever again going to quietly allow anyone to take over an aircraft.

      - and yet for some reason those very planeloads and planeloads of passengers and non-passengers have quietly allowed the TSA and other government agents to take over individual freedoms.

    27. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of us, as it turns out. Policemen, firemen, members of the military. We already have the proper psychological mindset to sacrifice ourselves for the betterment and safety of others.

      The rest of the sheeple? Good question.

    28. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      The issue at the airport was that there was a chance for an adult who had not been screened to do something like stash an explosive device in the clothes of the kid who had already been screened. The person with access to the kid had not been screened.

      Oh, I absolutely agree with this, except for a couple of small points of contention:

      1. Both the adult and the child were well within view of the security checkpoint and all staff and passengers in the area, all of the time.
      2. The child was momentarily in contact with the adult (think "hug a family member" duration, which is exactly what it was).
      3. Neither the child or the adult fit "The Profile We're Not Allowed To Talk About" with regards to terrorist attacks on aircraft. Note that this would be the same "The Profile We're Not Allowed To Talk About" as the Birmingham Pub Bombings in 1974, that being the statistically frequent demographic for conducting such an attack.

      If we were talking about 5 minutes out of sight of security, I'd agree with you. But we're not.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    29. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by zildgulf · · Score: 1

      No, no, no! How else can the Federal Government control us in an Orwellian fashion? You know, the New American Government by the corporation for the corporation.

    30. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by tibit · · Score: 1

      Calling 8000ft altitutde a "low oxygen environment" isn't exactly clever, I don't think.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    31. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by tibit · · Score: 1

      Oh, they can try all they want, it's entirely harmless.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    32. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, hands up who volunteers to be the first one to get to the hijacker, more than likely to be mortally wounded, so that the rest may live.

      Anybody?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_shoe_bomb_plot

    33. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      United 93.

      So uh...based on our sample size of 1, it happened 100% of the time? You seem to underestimate what people who KNOW they're going to die will do.

    34. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally agree, from the safety of my computer terminal many thousands of miles away from the US.

      Now, hands up who volunteers to be the first one to get to the hijacker, more than likely to be mortally wounded, so that the rest may live.

      Anybody?

      We're too scared to say "No." to a barely competent security guard when he demands to manhandle a 4 year old. What makes you think we'll actually try and stop a plane hijacking?

      How about this?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

      Any they only had the benefit of very limited information.

    35. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you are merely suffering from the misconception that all Americans are cowed, pussified turncoats like yourself?

      You've obviously never met an actual Libertarian.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    36. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      8000 ft altitude contains only 75% of the oxygen at sea level.
      http://www.altitude.org/air_pressure.php

      If I removed 25% of your salary, would you consider that a significant effect?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    37. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Yeah...you do realize that every single terrorist trying to do something on an American flight since (and starting with) 9/11 has been stopped by exactly the sort of people you're talking about, right? The fourth 9/11 plane, the underwear bomber, and the shoe bomber were all stopped by passengers who knew that they needed to act. No one expects anything bad to happen if they keep their head down at security. People expect bad things and will act accordingly if they see suspicious behavior on a plane these days.

    38. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by sjames · · Score: 1

      We're too scared to say "No." to a barely competent security guard when he demands to manhandle a 4 year old. What makes you think we'll actually try and stop a plane hijacking?

      The fact that it's happened several times so far including once during 9/11.

    39. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      If we were talking about 5 minutes out of sight of security, I'd agree with you. But we're not.

      No, we're not. But that doesn't matter. Anyone with a day's practice could learn to unobtrusively slip a palmed package the size of a couple of decks of playing cards into the clothes of a squalling kid in just a few seconds. Less than 10 seconds. And that's a large enough object to represent enough C4 (etc) to rip out the side of an aircraft. Set off in a tail section restroom, that plane is going down.

      The completely amateur slight of hand needed to pass a plane-killing payload from one person to another in a situation like that is trivial. And it gets around all sorts of other logistical problems, like wearable underwear bomb materials that are built to get through detectors, etc. If you're able to hand stuff around the detectors (or stash them for just a moment in a kid's hoodie, etc), your weapon options expand dramatically, and things can get much smaller and more powerful.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    40. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that it's happened several times so far including once during 9/11.

      Now the million dollar question: when will we see the people stand up to the TSA like they stood up to those hijack attempts?

      It'd be nice if the people also win against the TSA when they stand up against them too, but let's start small and have them fight back first.

    41. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by sycodon · · Score: 1

      You know I jest, but still...

      Have you not watched the Mythsbuster episode about explosive decompression due to a firearm?

      And I believe the cockpit doors are bullet "resistant".

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    42. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Brannoncyll · · Score: 1

      You do understand, right, that since the take-over-the-plane-with-knives-and-use-plane-as-missle attacks on 9/11, we've had multiple attempts to simply destroy the aircraft in-flight. The more dangerous of those was obviously given a little more thought, and included attempting to do so while on approach over a large city. You know, in an attempt to kill hundreds or thousands of people. The only thing that prevented it from happening was the degree to which the suicide bomber was nervous, sweating, and thus damaging his explosive device. Had he not sweated his bomb into being non-functional, his fellow passengers would have had absolutely no chance to subdue, defend, or even stop to think about things. They'd be dead.

      So what you're saying is that the security checks do not work?

      In my opinion the introduction of a security door between the cabin and cockpit is the major factor behind the lack of any successful take-over-the-plane-with-* attacks. If the terrorist cannot get to the cockpit they cannot take over the plane. Yeah they might kill a couple of hundred people, which would be truly horrible, but no worse a scenario than a gunner/bomber walking into any office building, train, public park, etc.

    43. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure the volunteers on flight 93 would disagree with you if they could. Please don't project your weakness onto others.

    44. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that people do in fact respond now with violence to aggressors on airplanes. Hell, it didn't even take an hour after planes crashing on 9/11 before that became the new response.

      Going to be dead for certain vs. possibly die heroically, that is a totally different cost benefit as compared to vengeance vs. being able to take care of your kids in the future.

    45. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, hands up who volunteers to be the first one to get to the hijacker, more than likely to be mortally wounded, so that the rest may live.

      Anybody?

      You might be seated in a window seat, 10 rows away. You might have had a few too many minis of jack on the flight. You might... fall into any number of categories where you sitting put might be a good (at least initial) response to a hijacking threat.

      If there was a situation in which I reasonably thought that I could take down one or all of the hijackers on a plane, I would act swiftly and precisely. Yes, I might die, but if one has a reasonable belief that one will not survive a hijacking, what does one have to lose?

      We're too scared to say "No." to a barely competent security guard when he demands to manhandle a 4 year old. What makes you think we'll actually try and stop a plane hijacking? I can't help but think that this is armchair quarterbacking at its finest, as much as I hate to say it.

      Different situation.

      If I am directly threatened with lethal force, and believe my life or the life of those around me is in mortal danger, I have the right (and some would say responsibility) to act to protect myself and others. The US Constitution even justifies its creation to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..", and the Declaration of Independence mentions the sanctity of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

      Manhandling a person, even a 4-year-old, does not usually fall into the category of "mortal force," unless the manhandled is a frail elderly person, a premie, a hemophiliac, etc. Sure, it might be a dick move, and even might be illegal, but it's not the same situation as a hijacked plane, and (perhaps MOST importantly) is not so clear-cut to bystanders as which party is in the wrong.

      If I saw a TSA officer strike a child -- say, someone under the age of 13 -- yes, I would probably take a picture and report them. That's a really clear cut situation, and there are few possible scenarios in which the TSA could justify such action. But if the TSA strike a drunk man and wrestle him to the ground, that might be an appropriate use of force. I still might take a picture, just in case legal proceedings ever arose.

    46. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that your life isn't in danger when the TSA goon is molesting someone else's child.

    47. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think three guys with box cutters can hijack a plane anymore. It worked on 9/11 because in the past, hijackers took the plane and flew it to Cuba or Saudi Arabia or somewhere like that. Passengers were told to comply, similar to what the cops tell you to do when faced with a mugging, and all would be fine.

      Correct me if I am wrong, but the reason why the fourth 9/11 hijack wasn't successful was because the passengers realized what was going on, and did something about it. They knew what was going on because they heard about the first three through various channels.

    48. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Fned · · Score: 1
    49. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by ichimunki · · Score: 1

      Actually, pretty soon the only people willing to fly will be those who are so accustomed to being pushed around by little bullies at the airport that when a gang of truly dangerous folks does try to steal a plane the bullies will succeed because the passengers will be unable to think, or act, assertively enough to make a difference.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    50. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      They did it on Flight 93, on 9/11.

    51. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by tibit · · Score: 1

      Nope. You're mixing up partial oxygen pressure with gas mix ratio. The percentage of oxygen in the atmospheric air is pretty much same at sea level and at 8000ft. The partial pressure, dependent on total pressure, does affect combustion, though, as it does affect respiration, so you're right there. Yet the effect isn't all that significant when you start with something that's hard to set on fire anyway. Shoes are hard to set on fire, man.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    52. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weren't the shoe-bomber & underwear-bomber both captured by passengers on their planes? AFTER passing through TSA security?

    53. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Tom · · Score: 1

      Anybody?

      Here. There's a number of things you can do to improve your chances dramatically, and the alternative is being crashed into a building, so the rational choice is to do it. So I'd stuff a blanket and my iPad under my shirt and go for him.

      On the other hand, I'd also give the security guard a kick to the face if he'd sexually assault a kid while I'm standing within reach, mine or anyone elses.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    54. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry for the anonymous post, but I don't want to undo my moderation.

      What makes you think we'll actually try and stop a plane hijacking?

      I'm somewhat surprised that nobody's pointed out to you that, in fact, people have acted to stop a hijacking, quite aside from the shoe and undies dudes.

    55. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that the security checks do not work?

      No. I'm saying it's attacks like the ones I mentioned that are why we screen passengers in the first place. It's why they're looking for odd wires, odd containers, chemical signatures on clothing/bags, and of course for inexplicable payloads under people's clothing. Because those turn out to be the things you have to look for if you want to stop the guy who isn't sweating the very same sort of bomb into failing to kill everybody on board.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    56. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a terrorist on a plane can do to me is, quite frankly, far less terrifying than the power given to a small-minded, uninformed individual with the backing of an entire government.

    57. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      "(best strategy, of course, is to try to coordinate so several people attack at once, but even if nobody else would follow, I'd go)"

      and all that would really take is getting eye contact with Leo/Mil minded folks in the surrounding seats heck even if you didn't do that im sure that when The Fight started it would be a DOGPILE ON THE RABBIT!! situation. (with at least one person on the plane posting to FaceBook/Twitter about the scene)

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    58. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Given the choice between tackling the guy with a knife and letting him fly the plane where ever he wants, if I see the opportunity I'm gonna tackle the guy. They changed the rules with 9/11, a hijacking isn't an unplanned vacation to Liberia anymore, it's a death sentence in a lot of people's minds. Am I gonna bum rush the guy head on? Probably not, not unless it's looking like I'm dead either way, but he better not turn his back to me. The TSA has much more potent tools to ensure compliance than mere violence, we don't fight back against the TSA because even if we 'win' we lose (blacklisted, arrested, and shamed in public).

    59. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, except with a TSA agent, your choice isn't between certain death and potentially being mortally wounded by a knife. It's not even like a shooting, where your chances of survival are drastically lower, but you still have an option to flee. If an asshole hijacks a plane with the intent of crashing it, NOT acting becomes an act of forfeiting your life. I'm willing to give the passengers on board a hijacked plane the benefit of the doubt - people do extraordinary things under those circumstances and I'm willing to bet more than a couple would be willing to take the risk.

    60. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then, how is the current situation any different from pre-9/11 days when terrorists would attempt to hide explosives on board with the intent of destroying aircraft mid-flight? The situation is actually less of an issue these days with luggage matching, which begs the question: Given the same circumstances, if pre-9/11 security was adequate, why is it suddenly inadequate today?

    61. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Now, hands up who volunteers to be the first one to get to the hijacker, more than likely to be mortally wounded, so that the rest may live.

      I'd do it if I was on the plane. Better to get up and take a shot at surviving than to remain seated and certainly die.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    62. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Yeah I think a bladed weapon or cudgel would be safer...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    63. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have inaccurately described what happened at this airport. Grandmother was in the process of being screened. She'd set of the metal detector and would be patted down. The child had been screened. The child touched her grandmother. The solution would be to have the child go back through the metal detector again, rescreening her in the same way that she was just screened.

      If her grandmother had in fact handed off whatever made the metal detector beep to the 4 year old, the 4 year old would have beeped on the scan. She'd have beeped when being wanded. But that's not what happened. The TSA people screamed at the little girl and frightened her. And unless she set of the metal detector, there would be no reason to pat her down. They acted wrongly.

      As for the sweating guy, who are you even talking about? Do you mean the underwear bomber guy who got through TSA security with no problems? That device wasn't big enough to have damaged the plane. I think they determined that it would have killed him and probably the guy next to him, but it wouldn't have damaged the plane and most of the passengers would have been unharmed.

    64. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because that's what has happened, every single time. Every would-be terrorist since 9-11 has been stopped by the passengers.

    65. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Brannoncyll · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that the security checks do not work?

      No. I'm saying it's attacks like the ones I mentioned that are why we screen passengers in the first place. It's why they're looking for odd wires, odd containers, chemical signatures on clothing/bags, and of course for inexplicable payloads under people's clothing. Because those turn out to be the things you have to look for if you want to stop the guy who isn't sweating the very same sort of bomb into failing to kill everybody on board.

      Maybe we should also start screening at train stations, bus terminals, office buildings, restaurants, public toilets, etc, to further perpetuate the illusion of safety? Just in case there is a non-sweaty guy with a bomb trying to kill everyone.

      To my mind, the terrorists won. Why? Because they have instilled in us a culture of fear and paranoia. We have handed over our freedoms in exchange for peace of mind, but it is all just an illusion. There is no such thing as perfect safety, there will always be a chance of someone slipping through the net. The tighter we pull the net the more we have to sacrifice. The best thing we could have done after 9/11 is to continue with business as usual.

    66. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be easy to find the courage to fight a hijacker, who can only threaten you with death. The government, however, can label you a terrorist and destroy your life. I'd rather have my life end than be destroyed by the our government full up with thugs as it is now.

    67. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by houghi · · Score: 1

      Do you know how they smuggle drugs on planes? Do you think they could do the same with explosives? I am sure they could.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    68. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should also start screening at train stations, bus terminals, office buildings, restaurants, public toilets ...

      Except, they haven't shown much of an interest in that sort of thing, have they? Not in the US, anyway. Buses and trains full of dead people have certainly appeared elsewhere, at these guys' hands. But not in the US. They want the highly telegenic aircraft stuff, or something a whole lot bigger than a bus or train.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    69. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by houghi · · Score: 1

      The people in the fourth plane did so. People can do crazy things when the only option is that they will die.

      What the terrorist faces now is a lot of people who are SURE they are going to die anyway. He now needs to convince them that if they don't kill him, they will live. He has 3 seconds to do that.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    70. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were several people on united 93 that disagreed with you.

    71. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Brannoncyll · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should also start screening at train stations, bus terminals, office buildings, restaurants, public toilets ...

      Except, they haven't shown much of an interest in that sort of thing, have they? Not in the US, anyway. Buses and trains full of dead people have certainly appeared elsewhere, at these guys' hands. But not in the US. They want the highly telegenic aircraft stuff, or something a whole lot bigger than a bus or train.

      Actually the TSA VIPR unit have been screening train stations, bus stations, subway stations and truck weighing stations, to name those I could see in this article. America is very much beginning to remind me of my trip to Beijing, although amusingly they were more concerned there with screening the locals than the foreigners.

    72. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flight 93?

    73. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... we'll actually try and stop a plane hijacking

      When the cost of doing something is less then the cost of doing nothing.

      Most of the time, dissension is two or three people against a mob of cops or similar violent government goons and the cost of revolt is too high. But if a group of people expect an unpleasant future, it is in their collective interest to act at any cost. And while individuals may die, the collective interest survives (the definition of mob behaviour). Two people objecting to the violent mob can't achieve that future.

    74. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I have bad news for you: if terrorists want to kill a lot people, they'll find a way to do just that. Planes are not the only ripe target for that kind of thing. In fact, it had been repeatedly pointed out that attacking security checkpoints in a busy airport would also be very effective.

      Or, simply put, you can cower in fear of a terrorist around every corner, and turn to a police state to guard over your every step. Or you can realize that the odds of you being killed in a terrorist attack, even with pre-9/11 level of security, are lower than dying in a traffic accident, and get on with your life without justifying the groping of 4 year old girls.

    75. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      In a post-9/11 world, any airplane hijacking can be reasonably assumed to be a one-way trip. Given this, yeah, I'd go for it - if I'm going to die either way, what's the difference?

    76. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by jxander · · Score: 1

      Now, hands up who volunteers to be the first one to get to the hijacker, more than likely to be mortally wounded, so that the rest may live.

      The passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 would raise their hands, but they died proving you wrong.

      Speaking for the living: There's a pretty famous group here in the US that literally signed up to do EXACTLY what you've described; stand against all threats, foreign and domestic, giving our lives if necessary to protect those who cannot protect themselves. We're called the Military, perhaps you've heard of us. Chances are good that at least one of us is on that plane somewhere, and we will do what is needed if you won't.

      *raises hand*

      --
      This signature is false.
    77. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets roll.

    78. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by EricScott · · Score: 1

      The more dangerous of those was obviously given a little more thought, and included attempting to do so while on approach over a large city. You know, in an attempt to kill hundreds or thousands of people.

      Citations please? The odds of airplane parts dropping out of the sky after the explosion killing more people than those on-board is pretty close to zero. So thousands of people? Nope. Not going to happen. Timing a bomb to blow up an airplane so that its parts correctly drop in the current prevailing winds to inflict major damage ? That is rich. Think of all the bombs dropped in wars (like airplane parts, only with high explosives designed for death) that resulted in zero or few casualties. Bombs dropped by people trained to hit targets. Not by some guy who only has a window to look out of. You kill me.

    79. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Sure, there are plenty of ways to kill people. It's just that they show a habit of attacking, trying to attack, and planning to attack commercial aircraft. We've also got decades of history of hijackings of such aircraft, which occurred with remarkable frequency, until they started screening passengers. Who's cowering in fear? Do you consider yourself to be cowering in fear until you put on your car's seatbelt? Do you keep a fire extinguisher around because you're cowering in fear? Or do you take precautions in response to actual facts? I'd love it if you could use an airline that had no security, so that you could feel all brave and whatnot, except that your new no-security airline would end up being use to attack other people.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    80. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Because people have tried to stop plane hijackings. The underwear bomber was subdued by the passengers. There was even a case a few years ago where someone was trying to break into the cockpit and the passengers KILLED the person. People are fighting back.

    81. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by danaris · · Score: 1

      We're too scared to say "No." to a barely competent security guard when he demands to manhandle a 4 year old. What makes you think we'll actually try and stop a plane hijacking? I can't help but think that this is armchair quarterbacking at its finest, as much as I hate to say it.

      Except that we saw this happen with Flight 93 on 9-11-2001. The people on that plane heard what had happened in New York and DC, and even though the plane had (IIRC) already been taken over by the hijackers, they got together and forced it to crash.

      Basically, the point is that since the Sept. 11 attacks, we know that the consequences of being hijacked are "everybody on the plane dies, and maybe a few thousand people outside the plane, too". So...that really changes the calculation a bit.

      Dan Aris

      --
      Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
    82. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see this (people are fighting back) keep being brought up, but it actually means very little

      1) The ones they fought back are, to be blunt, dumb and ineffective. The underwear bomber (and the shoe bomber)'s bombs barely damaged anything or anyone but the bomber themselves. I'm not detracting from the bravery of the people who stood up against an adversary of unknown strength, but hindsight reveals that the adversary actually had very little strength to do harm.

      2) If the people are so brave to fight back, how about fighting back the TSA? Oh wait, most people passively let the TSA frisk them. Most people silently support and vote in the same bureaucrats. Most people go about their own lives, buying all the cheap goods from China while lamenting the loss of American jobs, because by god we want a new iPhone. Most people just complain and post strongly worded comments on the Internet. Some people here said if it was their 4 year old daughter, they'd go berserk. Well, where is the ACTUAL father of little Isabella? Did her mother (who we know was there) go violent? It's her daughter, right?

      For all the fighting back the people do, they don't seem to be very capable or willing to fight back against somebody who's actually strong, who actually matters.

      In short, people are gloating about winning battles when they're losing the war.

    83. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Who's cowering in fear? Do you consider yourself to be cowering in fear until you put on your car's seatbelt? Do you keep a fire extinguisher around because you're cowering in fear?

      The obvious difference here is that the two examples that you gave are reasonable and proportional to the threat. They don't inconvenience millions of people, don't create lengthy queues at the airports, and don't degrade anyone. Standard TSA procedures, on the other hand, are considerable overkill for the threat they are trying to prevent - and even then they don't actually do much to prevent it (as Bruce Schneier has repeatedly demonstrated, they are full of holes you can drive a truck through - getting a knife or a bomb onboard is still perfectly possible).

    84. Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Live Free or Die, it isn't a slogan, but a way of life. Are you in, or out?

  44. Booster Seat ? by A10Mechanic · · Score: 1

    Did the 4 year old have a booster seat with her? You know, to see over the cockpit dashboard when she takes control of the jet. Without a booster seat, they're harmless. Just sayin'

  45. Advantage Romney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Mitt Romney should announce that if he is elected President, that he will immediately end the TSA.

    - This will win him votes from independents focused on civil rights.
    - This will win him votes from women who don't want their children molested at the airport.

    2. Obama would need to up the ante; i.e.: he had better immediately end the TSA, otherwise Romney will gain those independent voters.

    3. Even if Obama does end the TSA, Ronmey has a devastating talking point:

    - Change came to America when I made a campaign promise; I made Obama end the TSA. Vote for me in November and we can cut out the middle man.

    4. America wins because (finally!?) elected officials are listening to the people!

    1. Re:Advantage Romney by runeghost · · Score: 1

      Except that neither of them will do a damn thing about the TSA, and since we're only allowed to choose between the two of them, the TSA will continue to terrorize and sexually assault people for the foreseeable future.

  46. Devil's advocate by Schnapple · · Score: 1

    But she said the family's main concern was the lack of understanding from TSA agents that they were dealing with a 4-year-old child, not a terror suspect.

    Umm, devil's advocate: why can't the 4-year-old girl be considered a terror suspect?

    I mean, once we start saying things like "well she can't be a terrorist, she's a grandmother!" or "she can't be a terrorist, she's just a 4-year-old girl!" aren't we essentially letting the world know that these are the loopholes that can allow you to get past the TSA?

    Do I think the 4-year-old girl was a terrorist? No. Do I think it's impossible though? No.

    You're a terrorist cell. You need to get the (whatever) to your guy on the inside so he can hijack/blow up the plane. You find a family in a generally unsuspecting demographic. You kidnap the mother. You tell the father that unless he has his 4-year-old girl smuggle (whatever) to the terrorist who has already crossed the gate into the terminal you will kill the mother. The little girl won't actually be on the plane, she'll just be giving the (whatever) to the terrorist, then she's free to go and the father gets his family back.

    Is that a movie plot? Sure. Is it likely to happen? I don't know but probably not.

    But is it completely unreasonable to pat down people who don't fit a terrorist stereotype? No.

    1. Re:Devil's advocate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, devil's advocate: why can't the 4-year-old girl be considered a terror suspect?

      Good point. How about government officials?

      The problem we're increasingly noticing in cases like these is not the "Is or isn't [subject] a likely suspect?" context that has been handed to us by government officials, but rather "Is the context we're being fed demonstrably being used to enable officials to overreach their lawful authorities, and terraform the country into an increasingly totalitarian state?"

      How much security, for how unlikely an event, would you want in exchange for your rights? Rights that it's the government's whole excuse for being there to protect? Because left unchecked, a government will try to sell you Terrorist Insurance, Satellite Debris Insurance, Communist Invasion Insurance, Spontaneous Combustion Insurance, and Being Hit By A Freaking Lepton Insurance if you let it. Politicians are in the market of expanding their domain of control, and since that control must come at the expense of what had formerly been the rights of the People, it will continue for as long as it's left unchecked.

    2. Re:Devil's advocate by SomePoorSchmuck · · Score: 1

      But she said the family's main concern was the lack of understanding from TSA agents that they were dealing with a 4-year-old child, not a terror suspect.

      Umm, devil's advocate: why can't the 4-year-old girl be considered a terror suspect?

      I mean, once we start saying things like "well she can't be a terrorist, she's a grandmother!" or "she can't be a terrorist, she's just a 4-year-old girl!" aren't we essentially letting the world know that these are the loopholes that can allow you to get past the TSA?

      Do I think the 4-year-old girl was a terrorist? No. Do I think it's impossible though? No.

      You're a terrorist cell. You need to get the (whatever) to your guy on the inside so he can hijack/blow up the plane. You find a family in a generally unsuspecting demographic. You kidnap the mother. You tell the father that unless he has his 4-year-old girl smuggle (whatever) to the terrorist who has already crossed the gate into the terminal you will kill the mother. The little girl won't actually be on the plane, she'll just be giving the (whatever) to the terrorist, then she's free to go and the father gets his family back.

      Is that a movie plot? Sure. Is it likely to happen? I don't know but probably not.

      You don't know? The father, under the most dire emotional stress that could ever exist in a human life, is going to just "have" his 4-year-old smuggle something to a terrorist the child doesn't know? How many 4-year-olds have you raised? A 4-year-old is as controllable and dependable for a precision operation like you describe as would be an adopted alley cat or jackrabbit. You'll have phases where it's a daily ordeal just to get a 4-year-old to share one toy with a sibling, eat a meal (even if it's something yummy like hot dogs or chicken nuggets or cheese sandwiches), brush their teeth, go potty, etc. Even being willing simply to say Hi to a stranger from six feet away is unthinkable for many toddlers/children, and you have your terrorists just happening to luck into kidnapping the mother of the next generation's Olsen twins?

      Seriously, step back from the LCD screen, turn to face a window where you can see the unbroken line of sky and trees outside, and now describe your scenario again out loud to the room. If after listening to yourself speak the words you still think, "Hey man it could happen", there's a disconnect somewhere between you and Reality.

      --

      Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
    3. Re:Devil's advocate by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      That's fine to search her - but they should be aware she's only 4, so more care needs to be taken. Since the grandmother was taken aside for setting off the metal detector, send the girl through the metal detector again. If they absolutely must pat her down, at least have the parent with her.

    4. Re:Devil's advocate by Microlith · · Score: 1

      Umm, devil's advocate: why can't the 4-year-old girl be considered a terror suspect?

      Because she passed through the metal detector without setting it off. What's she supposed to have on her?

      I mean, once we start saying things like "well she can't be a terrorist, she's a grandmother!" or "she can't be a terrorist, she's just a 4-year-old girl!" aren't we essentially letting the world know that these are the loopholes that can allow you to get past the TSA?

      Just saying "well someone MIGHT be a terrorist" is a pathetic justification for performing intrusive, pointless searches and carrying out abuses of false authority.

      Do I think the 4-year-old girl was a terrorist? No. Do I think it's impossible though? No.

      Is it exceedingly unlikely? Yes. The past decade with the TSA accomplishing nothing has born that out.

      is it completely unreasonable to pat down people who don't fit a terrorist stereotype? No.

      Yes. Everything the TSA does now is completely unreasonable, and accomplishes shit. Especially the circumstances described. Fuck you for playing "devil's advocate."

    5. Re:Devil's advocate by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      But is it completely unreasonable to pat down people who don't fit a terrorist stereotype? No.

      Yes, it is completely unreasonable to pat down people who don't fit a terrorist stereotype (what they hell is that anyways?)
      It is also completely unreasonable to pay down people who fit a terrorist stereotype.

  47. Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're right. That 4 year old is a master of sleight or hand and palmed a quarter sized amount of C4 at the moment of contact to get it off of "grand-ma" (as is her code name), and was planning on stashing it in her little pink dress to use on the window of her plane later in flight for the greatness of the FSM to spite all who deny his grand existence. This is why they wanted to make sure to stop them in their tracks and search this girl.

    Or you could just be a fucking idiot with no common sense nor the ability to see this for the farce it truly is. If you don't have enough sense to know your rights and to be willing to fight for them, get the hell out of my country.

  48. Happening in Canada now too by Walking+The+Walk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This isn't just happening in the US anymore. My wife flew from Ottawa to London, Ontario with our two kids (2 month old daughter and 2 year old son) last July. They made my son take off his jacket, hat and teddy bear, put them through the x-ray, then wait on one side of the metal detector while my wife went through with our daughter. At that point he starting crying and trying to pull away from the big stranger forcefully restraining him from his mom. After verifying that my wife and daughter didn't set off the alarm, they waited for all the items to go through the x-ray. Only then did they sent my son through the metal detector, on his own. I got to watch the whole scenario from the dining area on the next floor up, and I've never in my lunch wanted to just hit someone as badly as I did then.

    Can anyone venture a plausible reason why they couldn't have sent my son through with my wife, and then just scanned them individually in the event that the detector went off?

    --
    A recursive sig
    Can impart wisdom and truth
    Call proc signature()
    1. Re:Happening in Canada now too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ottawa is really, really bad for all three types of pain: Security, US Border Patrol, and Canadian Customs.

      I'm a 100-flight-a-year guy from Ottawa (don't live there anymore but I visit) and I've never had as much trouble anywhere in the world as I have in Ottawa.

      My theory is there's so little traffic that they get so bored, as soon as someone walks in its rubber glove time. I can't explain it otherwise.

    2. Re:Happening in Canada now too by AdrianKemp · · Score: 0

      The actual question is why weren't you a responsible parent and with your son?

      If you'd been with your son they'd have sent him through with you and there'd have been no problem.

    3. Re:Happening in Canada now too by Adaeniel · · Score: 0

      The actual question is why weren't you a responsible parent and with your son?

      If you'd been with your son they'd have sent him through with you and there'd have been no problem.

      And if the rape victim had not worn that dress, she would not have been raped. Right?

    4. Re:Happening in Canada now too by fnj · · Score: 1

      Yes, I consider your question reasonable, and yes, I think I can answer it.

      The answer is this. Airport security is (1) a re-education camp and (2) practice for comprehensive totalitarian rule. They are teaching the young that this absurd theater is normal and acceptable; they are teaching them that there is nothing they can do about it; they are teaching them submission. And they are perfecting their own techniques for totalitarian rule. And just to spell it out, I am not criticizing Canada specifically. I am talking about pretty much the entire world.

    5. Re:Happening in Canada now too by Walking+The+Walk · · Score: 1

      and I've never in my lunch wanted to just hit someone as badly as I did then.

      Never in your lunch? Is that some weird Canadian phrase? Or are you just hungry?

      Mistype a few letters and auto-correct gets to turn a serious comment into a joke. Not quite DYAC quality, but I'm sure it will happen to us all at some point.

      --
      A recursive sig
      Can impart wisdom and truth
      Call proc signature()
    6. Re:Happening in Canada now too by Walking+The+Walk · · Score: 1

      The actual question is why weren't you a responsible parent and with your son?

      If you'd been with your son they'd have sent him through with you and there'd have been no problem.

      Because you're only allowed to go through security if you have a valid boarding pass. I worked an extra three hours that day so I could take them to the airport and see them off.

      --
      A recursive sig
      Can impart wisdom and truth
      Call proc signature()
    7. Re:Happening in Canada now too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...I've never in my lunch wanted to just hit someone as badly as I did then.

      Yeah, I feel the same way about airport food - expensive and usually gross. I'd hit someone in my lunch, too.

    8. Re:Happening in Canada now too by kramerd · · Score: 1

      If you send 2 people through a detector at the same time, it will by definition set off the machine.

    9. Re:Happening in Canada now too by Master+Moose · · Score: 1

      Can anyone venture a plausible reason why they couldn't have sent my son through with my wife, and then just scanned them individually in the event that the detector went off?

      The problem with your question is that by asking it, you are showing signs of common sense, reasoning and at least human level intelligence.

      The TSA runs counter to all of these things.

      --
      . . .gone when the morning comes
    10. Re:Happening in Canada now too by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

      Because then they wouldn't be executing the program. You know, the program where Canada gets the same docility inducing behavior mods that we are subjected to in the US.

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
  49. State sponsored terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is absolutely fscked. They are putting pregnant women through x-ray scanners and feeling up children as they scream and cry. At this point I would gladly accept the infinitesimally small risk of terrorist attack in order to live normally.

  50. Someone's goina get ti.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone else thing, "Wow, they are in trouble now!" when reading the grandmother's name...

    Lori Croft

    You can't make up this stuff....

  51. The TSA is correct by crndg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's true. The TSA is correct when they say they were following the correct TSA procedures.

    So let's not work to get those agents disciplined. Let's take this as a wake-up call that the TSA's procedures, and possibly their very existence, need to be re-thought.

    If following the rules leads to this sort of incident, then the rules are bad and need to be changed. Simple as that.

    1. Re:The TSA is correct by runeghost · · Score: 1

      So, your excuse for these assholes is "they were just following orders"?

    2. Re:The TSA is correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading comprehension really isn't your thing is it?

    3. Re:The TSA is correct by crndg · · Score: 1

      I don't mean it as an excuse. Far from it. But what choice do the TSA employees have in a system as screwed up as the TSA is?

      We need to fix the system. I hope this (and the countless other similar horror stories) will help wake people up to the fact that the problem isn't that this happens once in a while. The problem is that, in the TSA system, this horrible occurrence is what's supposed to happen. This is what the system is designed to do.

      If we don't want this to happen, we need to fix the system. We need to change the rules.

    4. Re:The TSA is correct by Kneo24 · · Score: 1

      While I agree, "just following orders" is a bullshit response only used by fucktards, I don't think that was the intent of their post. Ultimately their entire point was the last sentence:

      If following the rules leads to this sort of incident, then the rules are bad and need to be changed. Simple as that.

      And really, I'm sure you'd agree with that idea. There are better ways of dealing with security. Other countries have been doing it for years. Why can't we follow those examples?

    5. Re:The TSA is correct by rusl · · Score: 1

      What? Common sense like that makes you sound like a terrorist!

      --
      Stupidity is its own reward.
    6. Re:The TSA is correct by runeghost · · Score: 1

      They can quit. No matter how bad the economy is, no matter how much they need the job, there's no excuse for abusing their fellow human beings day in and day out.

    7. Re:The TSA is correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can quit. No matter how bad the economy is, no matter how much they need the job, there's no excuse for abusing their fellow human beings day in and day out.

      It would be great if they could quit and be sure that nobody else would take the job. Do you really expect that would happen?

      Google "Stanford Prison Experiment" if you want to feel even worse about humanity.

      Realistically, simply quitting does nothing to fix the system.

  52. Government without monitoring by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 2

    This is not so much isolated to the TSA as it is the government not being monitored. The knee-jerk reaction of all government people is to hide information. Organizations like the TSA think they can use "Security" as their reason for hiding information. But that hiding what they do combined with the fact that the public is there interacting with them every day is why we know they stink so bad. I can't imagine the waste, rot, and wrongdoing that takes place within the CIA and the NSA as we neither encounter those organizations and they really get to hide behind security. The FBI is probably not so bad as defense attorneys have at them all the time.

    So keep in mind that while we get to see the TSA acting like they only hire from the head injury pool that is only because we are getting a behind the curtains taste of what is going on. The entire government hires from the head-injury pool and the few gems are inside a head-injury designed system.

    The simple solution to the TSA along with all other government organizations is to open up their records. In this day and age it would be of little effort to post all internal documents, emails, phone records, etc. As for any security/privacy concerns: any "enemies" already have the information, and a tiny few exceptions could be made such as medical records. But otherwise if you deal with government then expect to have it on the public record.

    The TSA does tests where they slip crap by their screeners. They hold on to this information dearly, not to keep it from the bad guys but to keep us and our elected officials from laughing them out of existence.

    BTW someday somewhere the baddies will strike again and the TSA will say "See you interfered with our ability to do our job and look what happened." They seem to forget that they themselves have become the baddies. I feel zero threat from baddies but I can feel my blood pressure rise from the tension of what ludicrous encounter I might have with the TSA. Also this has resulted in my cutting back on travel to the US by a huge amount. Not only because of the TSA themselves but because of the huge security fees on any flight to the US. This has made flying a huge distance the same price as a short hop to the US. Security types don't seem to realize that this sort of cost (a small price to pay) is compounded. Year after year, decade after decade of making people miserable and avoiding your country will add up to the US falling behind the rest of the world. And guess what a poorer unhappy population is probably more likely to engage in the very activities that you are trying to prevent.

    The worst part is that the US population is developing a "They're just doing their job" attitude and get upset when videos of people given viper checkpoint thugs a hard time. You read the comments in any posted video and a good half are "Why didn't the douche just answer the cop's question." after the guy repeatedly asked something like "Am I being detained?" If most people didn't cooperate at all and only voted for the politician who promised to eliminate these McCarthyist institutions they would be gone in no time. But instead I hate to say it but you deserve the government you vote for.

    1. Re:Government without monitoring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's too bad some of these violent militia types don't get a bunch of them together, heavily armed, and go seek out trouble from these government agents (like the VIPR teams), and then when trouble happens, open fire. With enough militants, taking out the government agents should be easy (as there's only enough agents at one place to handle one or two violent people, not a whole well-coordinated team), and they wouldn't get caught (no witnesses).

  53. Game Over by Jawnn · · Score: 1

    "The terrorists" have clearly won.

    1. Re:Game Over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, we are all winners! Huzzah!

  54. Blame the politicians and TSA leadership, not work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blame the politicians and TSA leadership, not workers in the line being hated daily. They are doing a job. Then need to do it following the policies as best they can. Parents and grandparents can hide things inside children's clothes, strollers, etc. Obviously, the 4-yr old doesn't **know** any of this badness can happen.

    A puffy, stinky, diaper can be filled with explosive gels, after all.

    The TSA workers are just like you and I - doing a job. I suspect their job is tough until they become insensitive. I know that I would if I had a job like that. I'd make it into a game just to keep my sanity. OTOH, I have a master degree in engineering and I'm highly employable, so I don't have to take a crap job like the TSA offers.

    Last week a former TSA leader was quoted as saying there is no need to limit most common carry-on items anymore, including knives and fluids. The threat model has changed. Now that he is "former TSA" he can say these things. He has no more accountability.

    If you were the current head of the TSA, would you allow any more items through your watch - NO WAY. If anything did happen - anything at all - you'd be crucified. The guy who put you into that position would be crucified by all the mommies and daddies claiming that you failed. The media would say that YOU should have known better than to listen to the millions of anti-TSA bloggers and /. readers. They aren't security professionals like you. YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER.

  55. Stop Flying! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Stop flying you fucking retards. Eventually the message will get through. Money talks.

    1. Re:Stop Flying! by cjcela · · Score: 1

      Right. And what is next? Do we stop using Internet because the NSA reads your emails? How about closing the TSA and firing the members of congress that support measures that threaten individual liberties instead?

    2. Re:Stop Flying! by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      Soon the message will be... Stop driving or taking the train you fucking retards. Eventually the message will get through. Money talks.

    3. Re:Stop Flying! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      That's not an option for many people; their livelihoods depend on it. Modern business depends on a lot of travel. If all business travelers stopped traveling tomorrow, it'd shut down the airlines and TSA, true, but it'd also shut down business, and collapse the economy (though maybe things would be fixed quick enough that it wouldn't be too bad; I wouldn't count on it). However, you're not going to get all business travelers to stop traveling all at once, and anyone volunteering to be the first is going to lose their job, in the middle of a shitty economy.

      There's only two options:
      1) violent revolution - good luck with that. It's not like you can shoot a small cabal of leaders and get immediate change; this government is thoroughly corrupt all the way through. Shoot a few people at the top and the people who replace them will be as bad, or worse.
      2) vote for someone new - good luck with that. The People have the power (as far as I can tell) to actually vote for their leaders in this country. Sure, the general election is crap since it's down to giant douch and turd sandwich, but the people do have the power in the Primaries to vote for better candidates, yet they consistently vote for the very worst candidates, on each side! The Democrap voters are usually the ones these days pushing for "progressivism", "change", etc., yet do you see them out in droves pushing to nominate someone to replace Obama (who is the head of the TSA)? Nope. One or two guys did try to run, but they got nowhere, and weren't even mentioned in the media. Dimocrat voters all over just yell about how we need to support Obama (so we can have more TSA shenanigans? Are they insane?). And on the Republican side, there's one, slightly-loony candidate who really would fix the TSA situation pronto, yet he's totally ignored by the voters too, who instead are voting for a) a religious nutcase who wants to ban contraception and b) Romney, who's basically a clone of Obama, and looks at this point to be the frontrunner. So we're going to have an election in November between two crappy TSA-supporting candidates who don't differ from each other at all, and it's really the fault of the voters.

      The only sensible option IMO is 3) wait it out; sooner or later, this whole house of cards is going to collapse, the country is going to fail, and it's going to break up into smaller republics. One or two of those republics will probably be very nice to live in once the dust settles (some of the others will resemble Iran), so it'd be smart for you to move to one of those regions before the break-up happens. I predict the nice places are going to get much nicer once the Federal government collapses, and the not-so-nice places are going to turn really ugly. It'll be just like the collapse of the Soviet Union, where many eastern European countries prospered after freeing themselves of the Soviet yoke, while some other places (various central asian republics namely) turned into hellholes, as they were only kept civil and out of the clutches of religious nuts by the Soviet government. There's also option 4) move to a better country ASAP. I hear Australia is very keen to bring in Americans with tech skills.

    4. Re:Stop Flying! by eriqk · · Score: 1
  56. TSA is stupid but rational. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    I am not saying what TSA is doing makes any sense when you look at it from stop the terrorists point of view. But everything they do is perfectly rational from one point of view: CYA.

    They know that all this hue and cry will blow over. But no one will be fired because they followed the procedure to the letter. But they know they are not stopping any terrorists. It is a matter of time before something bad happens. Then this entire media circus will turn on them. Every journalist and blogger will do Monday morning quarterbacking. And finally they will find one TSA agent who deviated from the script by an inch. And they all will come down like a ton of bricks on him. "If only Agent Ball G Rabber or Specialist Gater Aper had done this or that, something very clearly and explicitly stated in the manual and procedure, this whole tragedy could have been avoided". All these guys want to do is not to be that fall guy.

    Federal bureaucrats are one of the last few remaining groups that is ok to be crapped on. Every time something goes bad, everyone, from politicians to pundits to media analysts to bloggers to slashdot posters to late night comedians, crap on them. Is it any wonder only the thickest skinned CYA professionals still remain in the Government service?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:TSA is stupid but rational. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're neglecting the possibility that one or more armed citizens will snap and gun down as many TSA agents as they can. In my opinion, that's more likely than an actual terrorist attack. Especially when shit like this keeps happening.

    2. Re:TSA is stupid but rational. by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      All these guys want to do is not to be that fall guy.

      So what's stopping the TSA agent to ask the whole family to go into a separate room, give them time to calm the child and when she was recovered and feeling save, do the pat down with the child holding the grandmother's hand. Just for example? Like a normal human being would?

      Abusing the child doesn't save any time, and it doesn't improve security. As for the retards choosing to abuse the child: they deserve the crap they get.

  57. Re:Little brat by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    He's absolutely right (at least, his first sentence is - he goes downhill from there). The fact that the girl was four years old is irrelevant. If there's an actual reason to pat down anyone, you also have to do the children they're with, grandma in her wheel chair, everybody.

    Since there isn't an actual reason to pat down anyway, the TSA shouldn't be performing an unnecessary, pointless and invasive procedure on anyone.

    Also, the agent is a dick for screaming at anyone objecting to being patted down. Especially a little kid.

  58. It seems clear that by fredrated · · Score: 1

    to work for TSA you have to be mentally disturbed.

  59. Numbers of people avoiding flying to the States? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm sure other people have commented the same... but I have seriously avoided travelling to or through the USA for several years now, primarily because the security measures frighten and disgust me. I am a Dutch citizen, but living in Canada as a permanent resident (so already I'm not 'standard'). Don't get me wrong - if I had to travel for work in the sense of 'you need to go to that customer or lose your job', I would of course. But I won't consider going there on vacation (I had twice before in my life) and if I (or my relatives) fly between Europe and Canada, we now always make sure to book flights without stops in the USA.

    I am really curious if anyone has made any serious attempt to quantify how many people are doing the same and what the losses are due to this, because I know I am far from being alone in this.

    As much as I hate the sue! mentality that seems so prevalent in the USA, I really hope the people involved in this story bring as wide a lawsuit as possible against the TSA, this whole insane instution needs to be removed as quickly and as completely as possible - and if a few highly publicized lawsuits happen, it can only help with that.

    Ps. Captcha: "Concern". How ... appropriate.

  60. Re:Little brat by wildstoo · · Score: 1

    I'm all for protecting our civil liberties, but I'm perfectly fine bending over and letting the government cram its fat bureaucratic cock up my ass anytime it pleases.

    FTFY

  61. They hate us for our freedoms???? by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    WTF... you've been defeated from within... one day the real truth about 911 will get out and you will be howling with rage...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  62. news by greg23s · · Score: 1

    why isn't this story making headlines...

  63. They've just moved the fear by alphred · · Score: 2

    Instead of being afraid of terrorists, we are now afraid of the TSA. I guess it's just trading one form of terrorism for another. Since the TSA has come around, I have refused to take my children on vacations that involve going through airports. Sorry Disney World, you're too far away to drive. We've been going to local attractions which have been just as much fun, if not more interesting. Nothing like family bonding on a camping trip!

  64. "I have children myself" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A few years ago our daughter broke her mandible and we had to go to hospital. The kid was four years old back then.

    First a physician applied metal brackets on the teeth and covered them with plastic. These brackets provided hooks to fix the jaws with plastic rings. Later another physician tried to put plastic rings around those hooks. He was able to apply some rings, but it didn't work out as he wished and he cursed against his colleague - and spoke about the good compliance of the kid.
    He said he would try it again later.
    A few hours later a nurse came in and told us about a second try, which was neccessary because of the bad compliance of the kid. Which wasn't true, the kid had held her mouth open, had been calm and had followed every order immediately. So I went to the physician and asked about this. He insisted the kid had been the problem.
    As we had to go on and no other physician was available on this sunday afternoon, I agreed to try it again with this physician. A huge mistake.

    The man didn't say a word to the kid, turned around and inserted a way to big gripper into her mouth, breaking away plastics from the covering nearby the hooks. He didn't speak a single word to the kid, which only screamed during his activities in her mouth, getting calmer in between his actions.

    Then he applied some of the plastic rings, eventually exactly at the same positions he was able to in the morning. Only that this time it was ok.

    After this show I had a fierce discussion with the man during which he claimed to know how to handle kids, as he himself had some of his own. He didn't like when I started to laugh out loud.

    So - where is the problem? These security officers surely have children on their own, so they know very well how to handle small kids. Oh, just to make this clear to anybody, who really thinks that I might support such behaviour: you might have children on your own, you might even handle them really well, but this behaviour is not acceptable.

  65. What did they expect? by Shawnwick · · Score: 1

    My 4 year old son will fight me for 30 minutes when I ask him to try a bite of his green beans at supper. I can only image what he would do if some strange man pulled him away from his parents and started touching him all over, he would probably be called something a little worse than "an uncooperative suspect".

    1. Re:What did they expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never understood parents like you. He doesn't like greens beans and you know it. Yet, you continue to serve them and try to force them down his throat. He isn't going to starve or become a bad person just because he won't eat green beans! How often do you, as an adult, eat stuff that you find revolving?

  66. I Support TSA Action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see how everyone is against this, if I was a terrorist and saw that 4 year old girls can get bombs on planes, then I'd get a 4 year old girl to get that bomb on the plane or a knife or gun, whatever. I find it funny everyone is criticizing this because I feel this would be the same set of people that would redicul them if the 4 year old girl was allowed on the plane with a bomb because they didn't pat her down. Anyway, TSA, I support this action, however, let me take a damn toothpaste in my carry on! Geez!

    1. Re:I Support TSA Action by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 1

      No, cause see, under your logic you shouldn't be allowed your toothpaste.
      After all, terrorists saw that they could get bombs on planes with them.
      Why should your toothpaste be exempt when this little girl isn't?

      --
      What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
    2. Re:I Support TSA Action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was kidding about the toothpaste, it shouldn't be allowed either.

    3. Re:I Support TSA Action by Wovel · · Score: 1

      " She also said TSA agents wanted to screen her granddaughter alone in a separate room."

      You really support that? You truly support the TSA agents taking a 4 year old girl away from her family to screen her in a separate room? You think the state searching children without their parents present is ok? You are sure your ok with that? That is what you want the world to be like? Your totally sure you support the TSAs action? Of course you don't. All you demonstrated was your a mindless drone that couldn't bother to even read the article. Maybe it would have helped to read what the family was actually complaining about.

    4. Re:I Support TSA Action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Detonation of explosives is actually fast combustion, which cannot occur without the presence of oxygen.

      Confiscate all the oxygen, and you won't have to worry about explosives.

    5. Re:I Support TSA Action by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Most explosives contain their own oxygen, often in the form of nitrates or chlorate compounds. However removing all the free oxygen would certainly reduce the risk of a hijacking.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  67. The SS Also Defended Gassing of Jews by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    Just sayin'

    It should come as no surprise that our tyrannical government defends its own crimes of tyranny against its Citizens.

  68. Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. by Hatta · · Score: 1

    What terrorists? You mean the dupes the FBI keeps entrapping? Or the insurgents half a world away who are just trying to repel a foreign occupation?

    No, the TSA itself is a greater danger than any threat from terrorism. More people have died on the roads because they chose to drive instead of get groped than died in 9/11.

    Employees of the TSA deserve the same fate delivered to Bin Laden.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  69. FTFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I am a staunch advocate for effective transportation security, but I'm also a strong advocate for common sense and the freedoms we enjoy as Americans," Sen. Jon Tester wrote to TSA Administrator John Pistole

    FTFY:
    "I am a staunch advocate for invasive transportation security, but I'm also a lukewarm advocate for common sense and the freedoms we used to enjoy as Americans."

  70. Re:Slashdot: Whining About the TSA All Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't wait to read about the latest handheld gadgets that I can use from a 10x10 cell, or the latest flatscreen HDTV I can buy on which to watch nothing but endless government propaganda. The internet will sure be exciting once the freedom of speech has been removed from it and all the open public wifi hotspots have lost their connection to the ISP due to RIAA and MPAA enforcement.

    Everyone, geek or not, needs their rights. Sometimes, it's up to the intelligentsia to notice the problem as it occurs, and be the body politic's first responders. If they aren't doing that, there's something wrong with them.

  71. Democracy Theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it is just election year "democracy theater"

    Finally! A term that accurately describes what form of government we have in the USA: "democracy theater"

  72. Maybe I'm crazy by Teknikal69 · · Score: 1

    I've always wondered why they don't just put the door to the cockpit on the outside of the plane surely this would be the best way to prevent hijackings. I'm aware that doesn't solve all security concerns but it would have been enough to prevent 911, my other thought for the other worst cases are giving the pilot cctv, radio links t the other crew and even possibly a sleep gas button although I also can still remember how that went for that school taken hostage n Russia.

    1. Re:Maybe I'm crazy by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I've always wondered why they don't just put the door to the cockpit on the outside of the plane surely this would be the best way to prevent hijackings.

      You'd probably lose more planes to incapacitated pilots being unable to get passenger help than you would to terrorists.

      You'd almost certainly save more lives by spending the enormous amount of money required for the refit on even better safety systems.

      Other than that, it's pointless on quite a number of levels not that the passengers seem eager to beat terrorists to a bloody pulp. Never mind that the cockpit door is lockable.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  73. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you stupid or pretending to be stupid?

    The 4 year old doesn't have to know a thing. She just has to be the container.

    Now I think it's stupid for the TSA to do what they do, but if you're going to allow the TSA to check adults, they are going to have to check babies too. Otherwise just forget the whole fucking thing.

  74. what they should do to prevent this by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

    Why this is not standard policy i don't know but

    1 clear the caretakers FIRST
    2 clear the kids

    personally i think that entire checkpoint team should be FIRED.

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  75. One more reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    for me not to visit your state as a tourist. Why would I want to visit such a unfriendly country? There are a lot of other places where it is way safer and less hostile. Imagine the first thing you experience getting through your airport is a pat down.

  76. Too bad this didn't happen in Florida. by tekrat · · Score: 1

    Because I would have shot the TSA agent, because I felt threatened, and was Standing My Ground.

    I don't usually side with the gun-nuts, but I'm beginning to think it would be a good idea if everyone on the plane *was* allowed to bring a gun. What's a terrorist going to do if he has to face an entire plane full of people with loaded weapons?

    Heck, even the unruly fat passenger who wants 30 bottles of vodka and is having the loud argument with the stewardess would be a lot nicer if he knew that there were 300 armed people on-board.

    It's like that car-analogy about having a large spike in the middle of the steering wheel -- people would drive more reasonably if the probability was much higher that they wouldn't even survive a fender-bender.

    Get rid of the TSA, and issue every passenger a gun. It's like nuclear deterrence, suddenly we're all going to get along fine on the flight.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:Too bad this didn't happen in Florida. by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      Heck, even the unruly fat passenger who wants 30 bottles of vodka and is having the loud argument with the stewardess would be a lot nicer if he knew that there were 300 armed people on-board.

      Because drunk people are well-known for behaving in a rational manner when agitated? He'd be armed too and much more likely to start a gun fight than any rational citizen.

      It's like that car-analogy about having a large spike in the middle of the steering wheel -- people would drive more reasonably if the probability was much higher that they wouldn't even survive a fender-bender.

      Which is wrong. Basically cars used to be built like that in the 50s - it wasn't exactly a spike, but in accidents the steering wheel would come apart when a body hit it, and what was left would act like a spike.

      US engineers improved that design, and as a result fatalities dropped significantly. Sure - some people might feel safer due to that improved design and take more risks, but that's outweighed by majority who don't and still profit from the safer designs. Certainly the effect you refer to exists, but the technical safety improvements more than compensate for it.

  77. Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. by Wovel · · Score: 2

    And this is what is wrong with the TSA. They are no better trained than the private companies that used to do the same job but they do cost us nearly 1000x as much.

  78. Does the cost justify the investment? by Tangential · · Score: 1

    I wonder if anyone has run the numbers to see if the TSA is actually worth the investment?

    We made a lot of security changes after 9/11 that have basically eliminated airline aircraft as a primary target for terrorists (cockpit doors, pissed off passengers, etc)

    The TSA has been around over a decade with a significant and growing recurring cost. On top of that, we have the hidden costs of delays, airport evacuations and other actions that impact the airlines and the traveling public.

    As a nation, we constantly make tradeoffs between safety and economics and there is usually some element of risk that we tolerate because the economics justify it. For instance, people still travel on airlines even though planes sometime crash or sail on cruise ships even though they sometimes run aground and kill people.

    It seems to me that it is highly probable that the TSA's costs outweigh their savings. Let's just warn travelers of the danger and roll on without the cost and inconvenience (and loss of Constitutional rights) that the TSA presents.

    --
    Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
  79. Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. by Wovel · · Score: 1

    Damn I am out of mod points. Jk. Before you get on your high horse in the future, consider reading the article.

  80. Better Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's a better link:
    http://missoulian.com/news/local/missoula-mother-says-tsa-treated-her--year-old-like/article_cc0e932e-8e74-11e1-bfe6-0019bb2963f4.html

    From the original story: (note that the mother, child, and grandmother were at the airport. The mother is referred to as Brademeyer in the story, the child is Isabella)

    Brademeyer’s mother had triggered an alarm and was awaiting a pat-down when Isabella ran to her. That’s when Transportation Security Administration officers told Brademeyer her mother could have passed something to her daughter during that brief encounter.
    “They said (to Isabella), ‘You need to sit down right now!’ and they told me, ‘She made contact!’ ” Brademeyer said Tuesday afternoon.

    In her Facebook note, she wrote, “When they spoke to her, it was devoid of any sort of compassion, kindness or respect. They told her she had to come to them, alone, and spread her arms and legs. She screamed, ‘No! I don’t want to!’ then did what any frightened young child might, she ran in the opposite direction.
    “That is when a TSO told me they would shut down the entire airport, cancel all flights, if my daughter was not restrained. It was then they declared my daughter ‘a high-security threat,’ ” she wrote.

    And it was then that Brademeyer disobeyed orders and went after her screaming child and picked her up.
    “The TSOs were not pleased,” she wrote.

    Things turned surreal when the officers started talking about guns, Brademeyer said.
    She pointed out that her daughter was dressed in stretchy tights and clothing with no pockets. But one of the officers repeatedly told Brademeyer that she’d seen guns together with teddy bears. “She mentioned the word ‘gun’ over and over again.”

    Brademeyer said her own actions probably didn’t help the situation.
    “I absolutely lost my temper the moment when they said, and I quote, ‘The suspect is not cooperating.’ I called one of them an idiot.”

  81. The US of A - Land of Liberty, Land of the Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US of A - Land of Liberty, Land of the Free.
    In the United States of America random organizations like the TSA have the Liberty to violate anybody's basic rights.
    You are Free to either just submit to those violations or be harassed, humiliated and browbeat until you submit.

  82. YMMV by hoboroadie · · Score: 2

    After years of incompetent "protection" and/or "service", gratuitous bullying, and general thuggery, I can say the same about most "Law Enforcement" here. I understand its worse in most of the world, but you'd think progress would not be stalled quite in the Bronze Age.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  83. Too much Hysteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have two children, and I would prepare and instruct them properly before travelling.
    Talk with you child about what is going to happening. Take your time to calmly guide your child through security.
    Play a role playing game at home where you play TSA yourself.

    I also don't like the the security inspections, but is seems necessary, so I just comply.
    Just follow the rules and don't get hysterical

    1. Re:Too much Hysteria by tekrat · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes.. please walk this way to the gas chamber. Oh, and because I have a plastic badge, I'm allowed to have sex with your wife and daughter. Just follow the rules.

      You know, once upon a time, it was "the rules" that I could OWN another human being because of the color of their skin.

      In some countries, it's "the rules" that women can't go outside without a male escort, are arrested for trying to drive a car, and may be stoned to death for wanting an education.

      So please, continue to follow "the rules" which may change at any moment, requiring you to give up more and more of what you once called freedoms, and may eventually require you to give up basic human rights.

      --
      If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  84. Re:So just hide weapons on children by Wovel · · Score: 1

    Great article. Worth a read.

  85. Civil war 2012 fighters defend Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The subject is the comment.

  86. Re:RTFA by Wovel · · Score: 1

    You must work for the TSA. Funny your subject is RTFA, but you clearly did not.

  87. My 12m was patted down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My 12 month old daughter was patted down on the way out of Heathrow (UK citizen going through security to Airside). It's not just the US having these pathetic issues.

    -techypaul

  88. The terrorists won! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... and also the companies that makes big dollars out of TSA

  89. Re:Little brat by saveferrousoxide · · Score: 1

    The fact that the girl was four years old is irrelevant.

    It's actually extremely relevant that the girl was 4 years old. There is now policy around children under 12 that allows a great deal more flexibility which intelligent people can leverage to avoid this scenario.

  90. Re:Absolved of intelligence by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

    Just put her through the screener again, for gawd's sake. Was this policy based on reasonable guidelines or engravings from Mount Sinai?

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  91. Terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only ones we see inflicting terror is TSA. How come TSA talks about all the stuff they catch and find EXCEPT for terrorists? Isn't catching the terrorists supposed to be the MAIN thing they are supposed to do? Security Theater with bad actors and a crappy script if you ask me. These days I prefer to take the train...

  92. Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

    It makes me sad to see this modded troll, because that's exactly what I came here to say.

    Then you haven't thought it through very carefully.

    blah blah irrelevent stuff blah blah

    The TSA could have done any number of sensible things instead of none, which they chose to do.

    They could have simply told the grandmother to take her granddaughter back outside the security line, and made them just go through like normal.

    They could have not acted like shouty pedo-kidnappers and not grabbed a terrified 4 year old and kept her away from her carer.

    Or, they could have directed the grandmother to take the 4 year old to one of those secluded pat-down rooms alone to let the grandmother calm doen the child quietly and alone.

    Instead they chose to yell itiotic slogans at a person simply too young and scared to understand.

    Can you really not see how they acted like complete morons?

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  93. If mod points could be higher than 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would give you as many as I could. Even though you statement is funny, the TSA is overstepping its bounds. TSA needs to be dismantled.

  94. Some small inner voice by P-niiice · · Score: 1

    Some small inner voice inside me would like to see this address along with police misconduct, profiling and brutality. But alas, we'll only scrape off enough bad stuff to make the system look good enough to keep selling.

  95. You should pay them not to touch you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For a couple of thousand $$$ they will not touch your genitals.
    Do the same as drug dealers do, just pay them off.
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/04/tsa-screeners-drug-arrest.html

  96. And a great lesson for children. by residieu · · Score: 2

    You remember everything we thought you about strangers, and how you never have to let them touch you in ways you feel uncomfortable about. None of that matters any more when you're flying.

    Response from TSA: Blah blah blah, procedures, blah blah blah, terrorists. The little girl violated our procedures because she was scared, therefore we MUST subject her to more terrifying treatment. Honestly surprised that the mother who walked past the TSA agent to try to calm her daughter was not arrested for her suspicious behavior.

  97. Re:Just doing their jobs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Atrocities the world over were committed by people "doing their jobs". Perhaps if more people grew a pair, instead of just saying, "there's nothing I can do" or "he's just doing his job", we wouldn't be in this fucking mess.

  98. Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. by Sarten-X · · Score: 0

    I did read the article before posting. I see a family who never taught their kid to respect any authority, and didn't bother explaining what was going on at the airpport. When an incident happened, they made a facebook post bitching about it, and sensationalizing the TSA's apparent lack of compassion while following standard security practices. What was your point, exactly?

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  99. The name of the game is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How dumb can we be and get away with saying that we just followed procedure and so it's ok.

    I don't see much hope of the Administration sorting this out.

    Hopefully the Congress will eventually decide that acting without common sense is not ok.
          Aside from undermining the Constitution,
                    it also undermines the TSA's mission (it's security, remember) because at the very least,
                          it makes it impossible for the public to take these clowns seriously.

  100. You say that now .... by King_TJ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But I hear the same thing a lot on message forums, where it's easy to hide behind a screen and a broadband connection....

    The reality is, people aren't really doing anything about this stuff when it happens. When you're out in public, being ordered around by a bunch of people in govt. issued badges and granted the authority to have you strip searched, arrested, and blacklisted from ever traveling on a commercial airplane again -- it's funny how people tend to lose much of their willingness to fight back.

    Every once in a rare while, someone makes a public protest (like the guy in Oregon who recently tried to go through the scanners in the nude). But it's quickly blown off and we're back to govt. control as usual.... (Right after he did that, I saw comments on the news stories to the effect of, "He was a computer programmer and I knew him... He was a nice guy and never did anything wrong. I can't understand what possessed him to do this!")

    Nope ... it's all a grand experiment to slowly "boil the frogs". Keep adding regulations and restrictions slowly, and it's amazing how much the American public will tolerate. Most of us wouldn't "jump out of the pot" if we had a chance, right now... Too comfortable in here!

    1. Re:You say that now .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a culture you need to talk to your fellow citizens if you want to see change happen, not your fellow politicians. Politicians will eventually change their minds if there is enough outcry from the citizenry. If you see a fellow citizen saying "I'd gladly give up a bit of freedom for the sake of security", those are the people you need to be yelling at and shaking violently to wake up from their fantasy world.

      As a culture though, we tend to be very non-confrontational, preferring to "smooth things over" instead of causing additional strife / anxiety. It is not an easy fix. See public education and/or healthcare for other realms where cultural changes are needed before the "system" itself can change.

  101. Re:Little brat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmm.... Maybe someone needs to re-read the 4th amendment. Are they acting on behalf of the government?

    Check!

    Do they have a warrant specifically describing the place to be searched and person or things to be seized?

    No!

    Probable cause to suspect a felony in progress?

    Not even that.

    Our Supreme Court (and apathetic citizens like you) may not care about the constitution any more, but it couldn't be any clearer about this. It's blatantly illegal.

  102. Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

    And no one would have complained if they had just sent the kid through the metal detector again instead of yelling, demanding a pat-down and then acting surprised when the kid objects.

    --
    USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  103. Jewish tyranny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... as usual, the Jews enjoy seeing innocent, helpless victims being terrorised...

    Let me see... they torture their own babies by cutting off their foreskins, nothing sick about that then! 'God' told them to do it, right? The 'mohel' even SUCKS THE BABY'S PENIS after performing his atrocity, to 'clean' it. You think I'm kidding? Google it.

    They torture animals when slaughtering them, by slitting their throats, so they die fully conscious. They slit the throats of hundreds of thousands of chickens in 'kapparot', another sick JEWISH ritual, to allegedly 'atone for their sins'.

    Need I go on?

    Your country has been taken over by JEWS, and they are destroying it from the inside. Your government doesn't represent you, and no longer even pretends to. You go to work every day so that your wages can be taken in the form of taxes, to pay for 'precious' Israel, which apparently must survive at any cost.

    Your borders are open and all the scum of the third world are flooding in, to take what your parents and grandparents made FOR YOU, because they can't make it themselves, and you have to sit there and pretend it's wonderful, or lose your job, or go to jail. How 'democratic'.

    Wake up, before it's too late.

  104. You get what you voted for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The people get the government they deserve --- Alexis de Toqueville
    Change the govement if you don't like it. The vote is in your hands.

  105. Exactly! I was saying that too! by King_TJ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This B.S. about being so concerned little kids are "security threats" because of a potential to strap a bomb to their body is just that.... utter paranoia.

    What I find extremely odd about all of this is the fact that so many of us accept this nonsense while in line to get on a plane, yet if similar policies were enacted in other public places, there'd be a huge outcry (primarily because it would suddenly be a regular inconvenience instead of a novelty). If we're *truly* concerned about this being an issue, we need to start searching all the babies and toddlers as they enter the grocery stores, movie theaters and sports arenas - and definitely at least pat down and wand everyone before they start to use a gas pump at a filling station! Huge potential for disaster otherwise, there.

    At some point, I just want to grab some people by the collars, shake them, and yell, "Life is NOT safe, ok!?! Get OVER it!" Maybe, in some isolated case, one of the days, someone really WILL bring a 4 year old kid onto a plane with a bomb under his shirt. Ok, fine! That's horrible, but it MAY happen. Someone may walk outside on a stormy night and get struck by lightning and die, too. Someone else may get in their car to drive to work and get in a fiery multi-car collision, killing dozens of people. (Better odds of that than the baby/bomb scenario.) Should we just stay in bed all day and do NOTHING in public, to protect us from all these possibilities?

  106. Today it's accepting bribes to let meth go through by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yes, it seems the TSA thinks it's critical to harass and terrorize children, but perfectly acceptable to accept bribes to let meth pass through security:

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/04/tsa-screeners-will-stop-your-children-not-your-meth/51593/

    The TSA is a corrupt joke and needs to be shut down.

  107. anomaly256 talks tough but wouldn't do sh-t. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL, yeah right you'd kill anyone in the airport.

  108. This seems outrageous to me by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1
    1. If this child -- barely older than a toddler -- was traveling with her grandmother, then the proper thing to do is to screen the child with her grandmother. It is absurd to separate such a small child from the adult she is traveling with, regardless of the reason.
    2. The screening process itself is a joke, contributes nothing to out security, and would not have detected a knife or a gun hidden on the grandmother's body -- so why would she have used a four year old as a mule?
    3. Remove "TSA," "airport," and "screening" from the process, and you have a story about an adult groping a four year old -- which is another way of saying a story about a child molester. The idea that a poorly-trained, poorly-paid adult should have the legal authority to grope a little girl is outrageous.

    You would think that we need some sort of a constitutional amendment that forbids this sort of behavior. Like, an amendment that explicitly spells out our right to be secure in our persons, so that the government cannot just grope people at will. If only we had such an amendment...

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  109. Re:Just doing their jobs... by AdrianKemp · · Score: 1

    Generally speaking, you're talking sensibly... but you open with saying "they're just following orders"

    Are there still actually people that think that's a reason to abandon basic ethics?

  110. Please contact your Govt Officials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please contact your government officials and complain. The American people must complain before anything can possibly change. Just reading the story and thinking "that's horrible" shows you're willing to stand by and watch this happen. Unfortunately that's what the majority have been doing.

  111. The "buck stops here"? by cpotoso · · Score: 1

    I am as anti-republican as it gets, and the TSA was Dubya's creation... But NOW, the buck stops at Obama and it is time to end the excuses. The TSA is a criminal organization that depends on the executive. Either dismantle it, make it work as it should (oxymoron for the TSA?), or it is your fault, Mr. President. Unfortunately this is the most common thing with Obama: every nasty thing that came from Dubya is still in place (illegal detentions in Guantanamo, illegal occupation of Afghanistan, the molesters at the TSA, the economics team, the economics policies, the tax breaks for the rich, everything!). So, what is the difference between Obama and Dubya? The color of the skin and empty talk.

  112. common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personally I think this is because of the parents lack of common sense to explain to the kid that there is nothing wrong and just cooperate. I also don't see the need to reduce pat-downs of children, its not what you are doing, its how you are doing it.

  113. Can't wait for... by spud_boy_65986534 · · Score: 1

    . the government to take over my health care. . .

  114. not to force check, only do them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the rules are: "if you dont submit to a check, you cant go on. if you dont want to submit to a check willingly, we can't make you, but you can't go on."

    if you force a check on anyone, then you are cracking on there rights.

  115. Re:Little brat by hackula · · Score: 1

    I'm all for protecting our civil liberties, but I'm perfectly fine with TSA pat downs and screening.

    Well those two statements seem pretty contradictory. Clearly you have never had the pat down before, because no one who has had it done would be "perfectly fine" with the idea of some random dude feeling up their taint. No it is not "tramatic" or anything, but it certainly is violating. The fact that they would not even catch anyone who was motivated and had half a brain makes it even worse.

  116. Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

    Then you haven't thought it through very carefully.

    Quite the contrary. I actually read TFA before posting, and learned what happened, and saw how blatently stupid the family was, and how the entire matter is being sensationalized in an appeal to emotion, rather than looking at what the security implications of "common sense" are.

    They could have not acted like shouty pedo-kidnappers and not grabbed a terrified 4 year old and kept her away from her carer.

    They didn't grab her, and they didn't yell anything at her. After the kid hugged the grandmother (who had originally set off the alarm), the TSA said she'd have to be checked again. The kid screamed and tried to run off. At that point, there's a person running through a secure area who hasn't been checked. When the girl was brought back, the TSA manager had the parent hold her during the pat-down.

    The TSA could have done any number of sensible things instead of none, which they chose to do.

    The "sensible" thing to do is to follow basic security practices. There's a secure area, an insecure area, and a DMZ between them. Entities passing through the DMZ are screened before entering the secure area. When anything from the secure side interferes with the security checking, it needs to be rechecked. Period. Disallowed material may have been passed unnoticed. The only thing allowed free passage through the DMZ are entities that have undergone a thorough vetting process.

    In case that procedure still doesn't seem familiar, it's also the basic DMZ setup for a computer network. Why is it that what's decent security for a computer is suddenly terribly unacceptable for an airport? Why can't the mother have told the kid "No, stay with me now; Grandma will be back in a minute?" Why do we complain when a boss insists that the new data server be accessible from his house, but we expect the TSA to abandon security for a whiny child?

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  117. This is bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is fucking stupid. Before I say anything further, I am a US soldier of over 6 years with combat experience. Not airsoft, not paintball, real people trying to kill me on a daily basis.. for years at a time. I have also spent the majority of my live involved with martial arts of different forms. I have also had several armature MMA bouts. I'm not a badass, but I don't shy away from a fight and I am no stranger to violence.

    I have 3 children. One of them is a 4 year old little girl.

    If you ask my wife what would happen if we were put in this situation, she can tell you that I would be in jail. Without a doubt. She knows me, she knows my convictions, and she knows that I try to pick my battles carefully, but fight tooth and nail for what I believe in. If I don't, who's going to stand up and fight for me? Not you. You would sit by and watch this happen. You would sit by and continue to let it happen to millions of other people and just tell yourself that it was normal.

    I would beat the living dogshit out of any TSA agent that tried to put their hands on my daughter, or tried to separate her from me, especially with the number of cavity searches going on as of late.

    Sure, I'd get taken down by several of them eventually. I'm no superhero, I'm just a man. What I would do is scream LOUDLY while all of this was going on, and try to get as much attention to the situation as possible.

    Youtube videos go a long way. Especially when it's a US soldier protecting his 4 year old daughter from being groped. You know, solders? The people that protect the TSA from the True Believers.. the *real* terrorists?

    My wife would do everything in her power to get massive media and internet attention to this thing. She simply wouldn't let it go away.

    Most of you would argue that "what good are you doing protecting your daughter from jail?"

    I'm a US soldier. It's not about me, it's not about my family. I would protect my daughter in the moment that I could, and hope my actions echoed loudly enough in the media to cause a storm on Capital Hill (especially with IAVA [Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, of which I am a member] to make sure this shit never happens again to another US citizen.

  118. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by groslyunderpaid · · Score: 2

    http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s16e01-reverse-cowgirl

    When the TSA becomes in charge of restrooms...

  119. This is why you're not getting my tourist $$$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm Canadian, I travel regularly to the U.S. for business. My family would love to come along some time and make a vacation out of it, the kids are always asking if they can go to Disneyland etc. There's 5 of us so we'd wind up spending some serious $$$ on food, hotels and so on.

    Not going to happen. TSA agents essentially assaulting 4-year olds (even if it's technically legal)? Wanting to take the little girl off to a private room for a "pat down"? Scanners that, even if they are probably OK, have never been properly characterized or safety tested for use on adults, never mind kids? Nope.

    How many more do you think there are like me? No vote in the U.S., no influence in your system - but I am most definitely voting with my wallet.

  120. Re:Little brat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except everyone is not screened, and even if they were, you'd have to be an idiot to have any confidence that a TSA pat-down provided any protection whatsoever.

  121. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone sick enough to try to bomb innocent people will not hesitate to kill a 4 year old in the process. If you disagree, maybe you can work out the problem of how some car bombers manage to duct tape not one but both of their hands to the steering wheel.

    Doesn't change the fact that the TSA people behave like assholes, and it's really just security theater and not actual security, but that's its own story.

  122. the peasants are revolting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By their behavior, lack of human empathy and lack of common sense, they're obviously meat robots.

    I'll leave it to the Timothy McVeighs of the world to take that line of reasoning to it's obvious conclusion.

  123. Give me an alternative by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 1

    You're the fucking retard.
    I'd like to see you give me an alternative when I need to be across the country in 6 hours, or across the globe in half a day.
    Oh that's right, there is none

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
    1. Re:Give me an alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sacrifices must be made until the situation resolves. This country was founded on action, not feeble pussy attempts at "working through the system." It's OK to try that but some situations require actual effort.

  124. Who apparently didn't read the article ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the article:
    -----
    The child's grandmother, Lori Croft, told The Associated Press that Brademeyer and her daughter, Isabella, initially passed through security at the Wichita airport without incident. The girl then ran over to briefly hug Croft, who was awaiting a pat-down after tripping the alarm, and that's when TSA agents insisted the girl undergo a physical pat-down.
    ----

    The article doesn't say that a metal detector went off, it only says that "an alarm" went off. From context I am taking it to mean that it was an alarm because the child went backward through the gauntlet.

  125. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by Dripdry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And I agree with you. The rest of you of the paranoia seems awfully troll-ish and they should be put away or on Xanax.

    If someone wants to blow you or some place up, they will. Period. You're dead so get your affairs in order and stop waving guns and police forces and armies around. Niet. Gone. Nada mas.

    Fortunately, terrorism is NOT the norm. People don't really want to blow themselves up until they feel they're backed into a corner and have nothing else to live for. So, try a little empathy first. It would go a long way toward ensuring a safer, happier humanity instead of this "Well I carry a gun everywhere because it's better me than him." Are you fucking retarded? Try understanding why someone might flip out and start shooting up a post office, for instance.

    I'll give you a hint: It has to do with desperation and scarcity mentality. There are WAY more than enough resources to go around, and if we actually had a society that valued something besides money and had a more interconnected one that actually has sympathy for people's situations, we'd have a lot fewer anxious, crazy people walking around. You! Hey you! Yeah, the one who bought that pistol that you got a conceal-carry permit for. Yeah, and you tell your friends it's your Constitutional Right? Yeah you. You know, if you got more hugs as a child, or hadn't been bullied to death in grade school, or had a friendly network of confidants who positively support you, instead of all the toys in your house that keep you "entertained" I'll bet you wouldn't need to walk around thinking you're some sort of badass who's going to hold out at the Ok Corral when the bullets start flying in Nowheresville, Suburbia.

    Good lord, I'm so sick of selfish asshats walking around talking about security. You're the dangerous ones. You ARE CRIMINALS ALREADY. You've committed crimes of blowing someone away, without judge or jury, thousands of times in your head. You've made it real in your mind, so your reality is that one day it will happen and you want to be ready for what you actually think is an inevitability.

    This security thing is just another manifestation of that mentality, and at the top sits a sick fuck who beckons with a finger and thousands can die, sitting at a little desk feeling smug and superior that,"I know what's best for everyone else."

    --
    -
  126. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by Synon · · Score: 1

    Of course we accept it, the public outcry was to add security for planes. If you think we do things based on actual chances you haven't been paying attention. If we see some sensationalized story in a national newspaper we believe if it can happen to them it can happen to us. The TSA's job is to make planes as "safe as possible", and you have to admit they are doing a good job at that, but perhaps a little too good, I think most people would rather take a little extra "risk" than deal with the TSA these days and that needs to be communicated to them. But don't forget, your privacy and self respect is not one of their metrics for a job well done.

  127. Re:Little brat by fnj · · Score: 1

    This buffoon is so brainwashed he wouldn't feel safe even hived up in his own house. He would demand all pedestrians be patted down so nobody outside could possibly make a sprint for his door with evil intent.

  128. re: Ron Paul by King_TJ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have to respectfully disagree with your assertions here. It's a well thought out set of ideas you have, but I know too many people actively involved in the Ron Paul campaign to believe you're correct.

    Ron Paul already *did* run for president in 2004 on the Libertarian party ticket. He's TRIED the "run as an independent" thing already. All that led to in '04 was dissent among the independents. I even recall Chuck Baldwin (Constitution party platform's running mate) urging all the independents to unite and stop bickering amongst themselves, even if that meant going with a Green party or a Libertarian party candidate instead of their own party. Few listened.... Looking back on all of it now, I really believe Bob Barr got involved in the campaign as a Libertarian simply to ensure it was fragmented. (Look at his past history.... CIA connections and all about "big government". Sure, he had a story about how he "saw the light" and changed -- but he essentially came out of nowhere, and proceeded to parrot all the press releases put out by "Campaign for Liberty" and Ron Paul. I was signed up on both mailing lists for a while, and I swear, EVERY time Ron Paul released something? Along came Bob Barr with his "Raising the Barr" newsletter the next day, with utter plagiarism of the Ron Paul letter.)

    Specifically regarding the situation in Paul's district in Texas? I think you're reading too much into the situation there. Ron Paul inherited it. he didn't create it. So complaining that his district is full of people who make a living from government jobs is hardly a failing on his part. At absolute best, all one can do to try to change that is to encourage the growth of new private businesses in the area, and hope the jobs they create will be lucrative enough to entice people away from their existing govt. employment. That is going to be a SLOW process that only changes things in the LONG haul.

    I'm not from Texas myself, so I don't claim to know all the details of what's going on there with regard to new bus stops and what-not. But in general, public transportation is ALWAYS a money losing proposition. Our local bus system is NEVER profitable, nor is our light rail system here in St. Louis, Missouri. In a "perfect world", all of it would be eliminated if it can't make a profit and replaced with profitable alternatives that were NOT govt. funded at all. But again, all of this requires baby steps.... If the bus system ensures some people can maintain gainful employment as housekeepers, and that in turn reduces expenses for some of the folks paying the taxes that pay for the bus system? That's not the worst situation one could have.

  129. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by interval1066 · · Score: 1

    This B.S. about being so concerned little kids are "security threats" because of a potential to strap a bomb to their body is just that.... utter paranoia.

    Yeah. There's some of that. Cultural paranoia. Lower level inner-party members (middle management types) think that any security is a good thing, so turn a blind eye to civil outrages like this. But the people at the top of the American heap, the CEOs, the millionaires, they don't go through these check points.They have daughters too. "Not my child, private plane. Problem?". This is actually more a function of knee-jerk reponse by a civil beuracracy machinery that wears the blinders of political correctness. Take back your government machinery people. Its off a gear and running off its tracks to crush you.

    --
    Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  130. Re:Little brat by fnj · · Score: 1

    It can't possibly ever be overused.

  131. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    yet when similar policies were enacted in other public places there was no outcry

    Just Google for TSA bus

  132. I fought the law, and I won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I travel frequently between Canada and the U.S., either for business, or for vacations with my family. I have experienced misanthropic behaviour from the TSA more than once, and had a similar problem occur.

    It was a year ago, and we had just finished the first leg of our trip and were already exhausted from getting up early, flying across the country, and were about to start the second leg of our journey. We had lined up to go through security screening and had forgotten that our daughter does NOT like to be separated from her mother. Wife goes through the checkpoint first and our daughter just runs right after her like a bolt of lightning. The TSA agent ordered--not requested--ORDERED our daughter to go back through the metal detector.

    At this point, I will point out that our 3 year old daughter, like many, is stubborn like a mule, but now she is scared. Bottom lip sticks out, crying starts, and now she is like a barnacle on my wife's leg. Good luck trying to pull her off. I'm her father and know that even I cannot do that without a lot more crying, screaming and God-only-knows-what.

    The TSA agent (I'll call him "Bubba", because he really does look and act the part) goes to grab her arm, and I stated firmly: "If you so much as touch her, I will have you charged with assault."

    "Bubba" is incredulous. He is so used to being in charge, pushing sheeple around, that he doesn't know how to react when confronted with a real sheep-dog (I'm ex-military).

    "What? We have to pat her down!"

    "I repeat: do NOT touch her. I WILL press charges."

    "Bubba" is getting red. Thankfully, a uniformed peace officer (police) comes over and starts to wonder WTF is holding things up. After a quick run-down, the badge turns to "Bubba" and states "Don't touch the kid or I will have to arrest you. Got it?"

    "Bubba" looks like a vein is going to explode on his head. Thankfully, a female TSA agent comes to his rescue, asks my wife to come with her to a private screening room, talks nicely to my daughter, diffuses the situation and everything is resolved in short order. I, on the other hand, did get a nice thorough pat down as a result of the interchange, but I got to throw in a few bon mots: "Hey, Buddy, don't reef on my junk unless you're going to kiss me first. I'm not easy like your boyfriend," and "That's better than the rub-n-tug I went to last week. I think you have a real career opportunity waiting for you!"

    Posted anonymously for damn good reasons.

  133. Good luck patting down my kid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a four year old and this summer her and I are flying. This will be her first experience in an airport but I'm a rugged "road warrior" for my job. Good luck TSA patting down my kid. This security BS at airports is ridiculous. My wife flew last week and TSA confiscated a tube of face wash that was too large to be in her carry on bag. EVERYONE IS WAY MORE SAFE NOW. THANKS.

  134. Check out the link by interval1066 · · Score: 1
    From the article:

    The child's grandmother, Lori Croft, told The Associated Press that Brademeyer and her daughter, Isabella, initially passed through security at the Wichita airport without incident. The girl then ran over to briefly hug Croft, who was awaiting a pat-down after tripping the alarm, and that's when TSA agents insisted the girl undergo a physical pat-down. Isabella had just learned about "stranger danger" at school, her grandmother said, adding that the girl was afraid and unsure about what was going on.

    What we have here, gentlemen, is less about a failure to communicate. Thar be a storm a bewin...

    --
    Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  135. Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

    So you're suggesting that if there's something abnormal that raises suspicions, the right procedure is to comply with the suspect's requests and use the weakest scanning system available?

    And that when there's a breach of security, and several people disrupting the normal flow of operations, it's entirely unacceptable to shout or become frustrated in any way?

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  136. Shame on the TSA by fluch · · Score: 1

    What else can one say, than shame on the TSA.

    I fly a lot in the EU and I never had any problems with the security process. I was always treated respectfully and profesional manner.

    But flying to the US (which I awoid at any cost, but sometimes I can't) is always an unpleasent thing. In a way the USA has lost already against terrorism since it lets itself be terrorised.

    That a country of democracy and "freedom" has its people treated like this is nothing else than shameful...

    1. Re:Shame on the TSA by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      As an American I agree. When I come back to the US I dread it like I am a visitor in my own country.

  137. Train your daughter to scream "pedophile" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're really cool plant some vacation photos of your daughter in said TSA officers truck.

    Then we'll have a nice fight between "Protect the children" and "Stop the terrorists".
    I wonder which bunch paranoid freaks are going to win?

  138. Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

    Do you have another source for this story? I'm very conscious that the bulk of the information appears to be coming from a single source.

    The story I'm seeing says quite clearly that TSA agents were yelling and threatening to close the airport, because the child was an "uncooperative suspect". Where does it suggest that the family behaving stupidly?

    --
    -- Using the preview button since 2005
  139. Re:Just doing their jobs... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    Generally speaking, you're talking sensibly... but you open with saying "they're just following orders"

    Are there still actually people that think that's a reason to abandon basic ethics?

    You say that as if you believe the people who take these kind of jobs suffer from an existence of ethics in the first place...

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  140. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

    We are paying $4/gallon for gas, it isn't our fault people over there are poor, the countries are swimming in money, our own money, which is used to attack us.

    We get robbed at the pump and killed by our own money.

    We need to get an ethanol based society, dry up the terrorists funding.

    --
    Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
  141. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It would go a long way toward ensuring a safer, happier humanity instead of this "Well I carry a gun everywhere because it's better me than him." Are you fucking retarded? Try understanding why someone might flip out and start shooting up a post office, for instance.

    Actually, you'd find it surprising how few crimes are committed by people who are carrying firearms legally. The criminals don't bother to jump through the hoops of registering, training, getting a license, etc. You'd find it even more surprising how many crimes are prevented by armed citizens.

    Not to mention the supreme court has explicitly ruled that it is not the responsibility of the police to protect you.

  142. Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    Quite the contrary. I actually read TFA before posting, and learned what happened, and saw how blatently stupid the family was, and how the entire matter is being sensationalized in an appeal to emotion, rather than looking at what the security implications of "common sense" are.

    So how was the family stupid by wanting to go back outside the security perimiter and come through again?

    And as for stupidity, have you ever actually ever dealt with a 4 year old?

    At that point, there's a person running through a secure area who hasn't been checked.

    No, there's a small kid (not very fast) running around. You know, the kid might run onto an aircraft undetected, then set off a bomb once it was in flight. Could happen.

    And that only happened when they tried to grab her. If they'd been sensible, that would never have happened.

    And, frankly at that point, you're seriously evaluating the risk of a 4 year old pulling off two complex transfers with the second one not being detected? That's not common sense.

    And starting to yell when a frightned kid runs off is not going to make the kid stop, so it was a very stupid thing to do. Kids don't behave likle adults, because they're kids.

    And frankly if you think shutting down an airport because a 4 year old kid has run off, then you are running scared, frankly. I, for one would rather live in a world with a marginally higher terror risk than one that is so stupid and officious.

    The "sensible" thing to do is to follow basic security practices. There's a secure area, an insecure area, and a DMZ between them. Entities passing through the DMZ are screened before entering the secure area. When anything from the secure side interferes with the security checking, it needs to be rechecked. Period.

    Yes, and instead of rechecking by sending them out to come through again, they decided to do the most intrusive and disruptive thing on a scared kid. That was stupid and unnecessary.

    In case that procedure still doesn't seem familiar, it's also the basic DMZ setup for a computer network. Why is it that what's decent security for a computer is suddenly terribly unacceptable for an airport? Why can't the mother have told the kid "No, stay with me now; Grandma will be back in a minute?" Why do we complain when a boss insists that the new data server be accessible from his house, but we expect the TSA to abandon security for a whiny child?

    The fact you think that you believe it is reasonable to treat scared children in the same way as a computer network speaks volumes. Kids get scared, computers don't. Computers do exactly what you tell them, kids don't. Kids can't be reasoned with by the person who is scaring them.

    If you escalate with kids it just makes the situation worse.

    The TSA officials had mature, sensible options with prefectly adequate security open to them. They chose to be abusive instead.

    You keep definding their actions. Then why is what they did better than simply sending them all out and rescreening them?

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  143. This is undefendable by cjcela · · Score: 1

    TSA's "proper procedures" are not only not proper, but abusive, ineffective, and used to keep our own US citizens in a state of fear and uncertainty. I fail to see a difference between the TSA "procedures" and what a police state will do to their own people. But what is even more worrisome, is how easy most people go along with all this nonsense.

  144. What is the outrage? by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 0

    I miss the outrage? I have flown dozens of times since 9/11.
    From major airports and minor. I have never been inconvenienced,
    I have never felt that what was being done was overdone. I have
    never felt the need to lash out at the security lines regardless of
    their need.

    I hate to use the old standby, but do you people feel the urge
    to hide something? So a stranger gropes you... is your moral
    fiber that weak that it will affect you long term?

    I just really miss the point of the angst. Either form a lobby group,
    get changes made or shut the fuck up. Pretty simple.

    -AI

    --
    For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
  145. sue them, that's the only thing the gov't understa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sue them, that's the only thing the gov't understands. Sue, Sue, Sue

  146. Re:Just doing their jobs... by erroneus · · Score: 1

    I joined TSA because I needed a job. I got a better job and left that service when I could. Most of those people are in the same boat. And I can tell you most of those people don't want to do what they do either.

    So far, people are being upset because it violates their comfort zones. That's bad enough, I know, but it's not like people are being rounded up and shot.

    If you want to see where the REAL rights violations are occurring, look to the luggage inspection process and look to the immigrations and customs process.

    It would be nice if the economy were in a condition where people didn't have to make difficult choices like "have a job or have an ideal moral standing" but it's never that simple. And so I put it to you to offer to take care of just one TSA screener -- feed him, house him and pay for his bills while he tries to look for another job and until he finds one. Because if you're not willing to do that, your moral standing just doesn't quite stand up. And frankly, if you were faced with such a choice, I doubt you would favor starving and homelessness over feeling up a few angry travellers.

  147. Thank God by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    This girl could of been hiding dangerous explosives, she could of been caring coke in her tits, she could of been working with the Taliban to completely corrupt the USA......

    Or she could of been a normal 4 year old girl.

  148. real name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Theatrical Security Agency"

  149. Fuck the TSA by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

    Every motherfucker involved with the TSA needs to be flayed alive & dipped in vinegar.

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  150. A little push-back is in order... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For those of us living in the good old USA: how about making the disbanding of the TSA an election year issue. We could do worse, and we could have a really good time.

  151. Let's try something different. by ring-eldest · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It's obvious that there is nothing we can do to bring a peaceful end to the TSA. Voting didn't work. A widespread campaign of ridicule didn't work. Refusing to fly didn't work, and simply leads to the government propping up at-risk airlines. It is time to try something a little different:

    Publicly document the names of people employed by the TSA. Every single one of them, from their administration (John Pistole) all the way down to the nameless, faceless front-line gropers. It won't take long for a document like that to spread in the wild.

    That's step one. It becomes unnecessary once the following step starts to gather momentum because these people wear uniforms, drive to work everyday, and are self-identified. They don't wear masks (yet).

    Step 2: Make their lives as TSA agents unbearable. Everything from denying them loans and refusing to do business with them personally to stealing their cars and vandalizing their property. Hurt them, hurt their families, hurt them financially. Humiliate them and make them legitimately afraid for their lives and those of their wives, husbands, and children. Socially ostracize them completely or make them targets, whichever your morals and conscience dictates, but start such a campaign of fear that the TSA will never see another willing job applicant.

    Make them ashamed and afraid of doing their job, because they should be.

    1. Re:Let's try something different. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hurt them, hurt their families, hurt them financially. Humiliate them and make them legitimately afraid for their lives and those of their wives, husbands, and children"

      So let's terrorize (literally) the TSA agents? I'd like to punch you in the face for that comment

  152. Re:Little brat by Jessified · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you're so scared of terrorists, never leave your house. There is no right to feel safe at the expense of everyone's freedom and privacy. Not only that, but increased cockpit security and civilian awareness of the consequences of plane hijackings is more than enough.

    This is so right on point it bears repeating.

    So many TSA supporters say, "If you don't like having your rights violated, then don't fly. Travel is not a right." I think a decent response is, as you said, "If you are so terrified of being killed in a terrorist attack, then don't fly. Travel is not a right."

  153. Out of Curiosity... by Ferretman · · Score: 2

    ...has TSA ever admitted they've done a search wrong, or conducted one that wasn't called for?

    Ferretman

    --
    Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
  154. Internets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are people still traveling when you can just use the internet to look at pretty much anything. It's just a big waste of fuel. If you live far away from your family, there's Skype. Bah, humbug!

  155. This be Kansas by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

    Well in Kansas the usual procedure would be to put the child in water, if she floated she is a witch and be burned at the stake, if she sunk, she is packing a hand gun and would be arrested if they the mouth to mouth recessitation worked. They learn about that in school the period after they learn about how God created the universe and that science and biologists are just lazy intellectuals selling people on a cute story to help continue getting grants for research.

    I can see the new ticket form now, you get the child nightmare option for free, and a voucher for psyciatric treatment for 50 years for the sweet little one.

  156. Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you are underestimating what you can teach even a 4 year old to do. Not saying it's likely a parent would do such a thing, but it's possible.

  157. Re:Of course. (Anonymity in a burka) by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

    Let me play Devil's advocate.
    A burka makes a(n) (armed) small man indistinguishable from a woman, and a "little person" with certain forms of dwarfism can easily be made to look like a child.

    Islamic dress makes hiding weapons comparatively easy!

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  158. protect the children, get rid of the tsa by Dan667 · · Score: 1

    that is how they do it when they push draconian laws (think of the children!), why would it not work to get rid of the tsa?

  159. TSA? Realize? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    C'mon. TSA hasn't the collective mental capability of "realizing" something. They seem to have a *negative* collictive IQ or something.

    Disband that criminal group already.

  160. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    moran...

  161. It isn't the TSA that scared this kid by s0nicfreak · · Score: 1

    it was the "stranger danger" bullshit taught at schools.

  162. Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

    There's nothing I've seen that isn't a blatant retelling of the family's story, with minimal input from the TSA. There's one source that shares most details with TFA, but has less sensationalism, and gives a clearer picture of the sequence of events. Since the TSA's statement is short and not very informative, separating the actual events from the family's emotional retelling is a matter of interpretation.

    A female officer started “yelling at my child and demanded she, too, must sit down and await a full body pat-down,” Brademeyer said. Her daughter responded by putting her hands over her face and crying.

    “I was prevented from coming any closer, explaining the situation to her, or consoling her in any way. It was implied, several times, that my mother, in their brief two-second embrace, had passed a handgun to my daughter.”

    I interpret that to mean that the parent didn't control their kid through the checkpoint or explain sufficiently that they'd need to "stay near mommy", and apparently the grandmother (who was worthy of getting a running hug a few seconds prior) didn't console the confused child herself. When the TSA tried to explain that the procedure is because contraband could be passed, the family took that as an accusation.

    I personally think the TSA's a ridiculous waste of my government's time and resources, but that's no excuse for turning a child's confusion into a sensational media circus.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  163. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As per Kellerman, the gun you own is far more likely to be used to kill your family members than any intruder. So you're risking your family to wave you penis replacement around.

    The brave thing to do, the RIGHT thing to do is to not have one.

  164. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NO NO NO...don't bring logic and facts into this. It'll ruin his pretty little world view that guns are teh baddz and hurtz peoples all by themselves.

  165. Have you done anything about it? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

    What I just wrote to my Senators:

    According to an AP news article (http://bit.ly/Jd55Zz):

    --------
    WICHITA, Kan. (AP) — The grandmother of a 4-year-old girl who became hysterical during a security screening at a Kansas airport said Wednesday that the child was forced to undergo a pat-down after hugging her, with security agents yelling and calling the crying girl an uncooperative suspect.
    --------

    I am afraid for my country. We've been reduced to molesting terrified little girls in airports for a demonstration of fake security. When will this end? Please use your position as a Senator from our great state to protect Americans from the TSA.

    Respectfully,
    Kirk Strauser

    What bothers me most is that I halfway expect to be asked about those letters or this post the next time I fly.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  166. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    You! Hey you! Yeah, the one who bought that pistol that you got a conceal-carry permit for. Yeah, and you tell your friends it's your Constitutional Right? Yeah you. You know, if you got more hugs as a child, or hadn't been bullied to death in grade school, or had a friendly network of confidants who positively support you, instead of all the toys in your house that keep you "entertained" I'll bet you wouldn't need to walk around thinking you're some sort of badass who's going to hold out at the Ok Corral when the bullets start flying in Nowheresville, Suburbia.
    I'm not sure how you figure gun ownership has anything to do with all this security hoopla. You seem to have an irrational hatred for people who want to own guns. Perhaps if you feel that strongly, you should organize a group to repeal the second amendment. I'm not sure what has you all bothered about legally owning weapons. Perhaps you were bullied as a child, or didn't get enough hugs or don't have a friendly network of confidants who positively support you.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  167. Midget not Alkida are the next big threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The TSA agents were just being vigilant against the next threat .

  168. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man- I want to elect you to office. It is too bad that can't happen.

  169. Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    interpret that to mean that the parent didn't control their kid through the checkpoint or explain sufficiently that they'd need to "stay near mommy"

    The kid's 4, dude. I really don't understand what part of that you don't understand. Sometimes they do random things.

    and apparently the grandmother (who was worthy of getting a running hug a few seconds prior) didn't console the confused child herself.

    I assume you've never either (a) been a kid and (b) ever seen any kids ever. No, basically only the kids mother will do. That's just how most kids work.

    I personally think the TSA's a ridiculous waste of my government's time and resources, but that's no excuse for turning a child's confusion into a sensational media circus.

    The reason for the media circus is because they insisted on doing an intrusive, invasive, unpleasant and totally unnecessary patdown on a young, scared kid.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  170. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by jo42 · · Score: 1

    We need to get an ethanol based society

    And royally clusterfuck the food supply chain and cost of food. Good idear there Amrikhun Dumbtard.

  171. Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. by Sarten-X · · Score: 0

    At this point it's obvious you don't deal with security or children (or shouldn't be, at least). Security is pointless if it's compromised, or left to the whims of people involved. I'll pick out a few bits of nonsense:

    And that only happened when they tried to grab her. If they'd been sensible, that would never have happened.

    There's no evidence the kid was ever "grabbed". From a clearer source:

    She said the officers told the girl her she had to come to them, alone, and spread her arms and legs. When the girl ran in the opposite direction, she said, an officer told Brademeyer “they would shut down the entire airport, cancel all flights, if my daughter was not restrained.”

    And, frankly at that point, you're seriously evaluating the risk of a 4 year old pulling off two complex transfers with the second one not being detected? That's not common sense.

    No, I'm evaluating the risk of a child being used as a tool for pulling off two complex transfers, where everyone involved has an unknown level of training. Children of all ages are known to be used around the world as pickpockets and drug mules. When your goal is to maintain security, "common sense" is expecting a hug to be part of the act.

    Kids get scared, computers don't. Computers do exactly what you tell them, kids don't. Kids can't be reasoned with by the person who is scaring them.

    By age four, children are perfectly capable of understanding appropriate behavior, and being patient enough to wait through lines. They're also capable of being used for smuggling. The "sensible" thing to do would be to talk to your kids about appropriate behavior before entering the checkpoint, not assume the TSA's going to babysit your kids for you at the expense of security.

    The TSA officials had mature, sensible options with prefectly adequate security open to them.

    Like have the mother accompany the child during her pat-down, with a manger's approval and additional supervision? That's what ultimately happened, and it took a whole 10 minutes to accomplish... but please don't let that get in the way of your rant.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  172. As a point of comparison by ugen · · Score: 1

    My then 2-year-old daughter was subjected to a patdown by security at Frankfurt airport a few years ago. Granted, it was a flight to US, so perhaps they were following some sort of US rule - I can't tell. We were going from one terminal to another, possibly dedicated to US flights (or may be not).

    Either way, it was done by a German policewoman (again, not sure who they are, it's been a while, but they did appear to have police uniforms). They patted down pretty much everyone, as far as I recall. 2 year old child was not exempt. Fortunately, my daughter is a calm type - but she was quite a bit surprised. Nothing like that happened to her before (or since) in any other airport, at least not yet.

    With that, and my multiple similar own experiences at European airports and elsewhere, I am not quite sure what is so different in Europe in terms of personal privacy or freedom. That's not to say it is a good thing - quite the contrary. I just don't get where the "Europe is more free than US" sentiment comes from.

    And don't get me started on CCTV in UK.

  173. TSA: the new terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems the TSA are the new terrorists. At least the idea/probability of being abused by the authorities is what fills me with fear when flying.

    terror
    1. Extreme fear: "people fled in terror"; "a terror of darkness".
    2. The use of such fear to intimidate people, esp. for political reasons: "weapons of terror".

  174. Hey TSA pervs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stay classy!

  175. Simple solution? by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 1

    My cousin is here with me now, and we are discussing this topic. And his answer is so stupid and simple I must bounce it off you guys.

    He says: "If you don't like this system, then don't fly. Case closed. No one is forcing you to fly anywhere."


    PS: He is a known teetotaler and rule follower. (He did not see me write that part :) )

  176. Is Americas answer to equilibrium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the TSA of prozium?

  177. TSA defends patting down 4 year old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Creepy, man. Just creepy.

  178. They got it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excuse me, Sir, I gots ta check yo aaasshole

  179. Please read ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're interested in how the Katrina mess was handled, both at the higher-up level and by the folks on the ground, read Zeitoun by Dave Eggers.

    Just as the higher-ups often cannot be trusted, the folks on the front lines cannot be trusted either. As with all things, it's not simple, and there needs to be a balance between accountability and initiative.

  180. Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

    Sometimes they do random things.

    Oh, look at that cute kid! Ha ha, he's got a flamethrower! Isn't that adorable?

    Kids only do random things when their parents let them.

    I assume you've never either (a) been a kid and (b) ever seen any kids ever. No, basically only the kids mother will do. That's just how most kids work.

    So let the kid cry. It worked for me, and it worked for my kids. In ten minutes, the manager's approved an alternative procedure, and the problem's solved.

    The reason for the media circus is because they insisted...

    Nope. It's because people like you see the just-like-me think-of-the-children underdog getting abused by the evil bad nasty gub'mint, and band together in an orgy of hate, feeling for two minutes like you have a common enemy, and that if you scream loud enough at the villain of the day, the world will listen to you, and you don't need to play politics or actually work toward improvement, but just be united in your anger.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  181. I just flew from Europe to USA by lamer01 · · Score: 1

    On a major american airline. How the security was handled? No need to remove bottles or shoes, no pat downs or x-rays. Everything seemed the same as pre-9/11 security with one exception. The gate itself was sealed. To enter the gate they had some security staff with airline garb on. They asked simple questions. The cliche ones like 'did you pack your bags yourself', etc. BUT, I noticed that they were intently watching my facial and body language during this brief conversation. To me they looked like well trained security professionals. I am sure if I showed any suspicious signs I may have been searched further. I did not notice that from a planeful of 300 passengers, they patted down or used the hand-held wand on a handful of people. The net effect of all this? The whole check-in & security line was 10 minutes. I did get to airport 2.5 hours ahead of time. I certainly did not have to do so. We need to return to this. Our current process is so wasteful.

  182. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by cdrguru · · Score: 1

    The problem is:

    • Without screening, there is no liability insurance for the airlines.
    • Without liability insurance the airlines will not fly the plane.

    This was pretty much settled in the 1970s when the whole security screening process got started to eliminate handguns and grenades from airplanes. A few airlines were slow to pick up on their new responsibility and learned from their insurance carriers they did not have a choice.

    Sorry, but you are 40 years too late to deal with the screening issue. The only possible question is who is doing it, and again I think the insurance is going to dictate that the government must do it because the airlines were "lax" in allowing 9/11 to happen. So, no government screening = no flying.

  183. 9/11 inside job - cia whistle blower by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    listen to this: "CIA WhistleBlower EXPOSES" on youtube, explains a lot !

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68LUHa_-OlA&feature=related

  184. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by scot4875 · · Score: 1

    You'd find it even more surprising how many crimes are prevented by armed citizens.

    I would indeed be surprised at this. Have any statistics to back this up? Because the very few I know of that exist are from heavily biased sources and disputed by everyone that doesn't share the bias.

    --Jeremy

    --
    Jesus was a liberal
  185. Justifications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They keep giving us justifications for the terrible things they say they need to do to keep us 'safe'.

    What if the justification turns out to be a lie?

    Are the actions justified?

    I think not.
    So lets look at the justifications, are the the increased invasions of our privacy making us more safe?
    If not then, perhaps it is time for a rethink.

  186. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by schlachter · · Score: 1

    In Israel; Hamas and Fatah have a history of strapping young children and mentally handicapped kids with bombs and having them approach Israelis...only to remote detonate the child. Israel has saved more than one of these children by defusing the bomb before they are detonated. So...it's not really true that we don't have the search children. But it should be done professionally and with care.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
  187. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by OldeTimeGeek · · Score: 1

    Only if we continue to use corn-based ethanol rather than cellulosic ethanol that use wood waste products or grasses.

  188. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by Tharkkun · · Score: 1

    They have metal detectors and wands in MN at many sporting events and nightclubs. Been that way since the late 90's...

  189. Meanwhile, at the bottom of the Indian Ocean ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama Bin Laden is rolling with glee and laughing at what he set off ...

  190. The problem is fundamental by sartin · · Score: 1

    "TSA has reviewed the incident and determined that our officers followed proper screening procedures in conducting a modified pat-down on the child," the agency said.

    TSA is a bureaucracy interested in following procedures rather than creating any sort of real security. It will always be invasive because they will constantly add new rules to deal with old threats. It will never be effective because they only follow the rules rather than looking for real threats.

  191. The best way to ensure compliance ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    start on the young - they will learn that such treatment is 'normal and expected'. Within a generation, they will regard it as abnormal not to be strip searched.

  192. Don't knock Mussolini ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... he got the damn trains running on time! Much better than TSA that is
    delaying all the planes.

    1. Re:Don't knock Mussolini ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... he got the damn trains running on time! Much better than TSA that is
      delaying all the planes.

      Well I'm on a train (in Italy) right now, and I feel the urge to knock you down :)

  193. Contact your State's Senators by CSG_SurferDude · · Score: 1

    http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

    EVERYONE needs to send letters (NOT emails) to their state's senators. If enough people deluge their offices with "Shutdown the TSA" mail, they'll finally get a clue and do something about.

    And yes, spend the money on a stamp, these guys pay more attention to paper mail than email.

  194. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

    Why ethanol? It seems like renewable forms would be much better and would not disrupt the food supply (and pricing). If you're talking about automobiles, we should move towards the new IBM "breathable" batteries, which weigh much less because they get some of their power from the atmosphere. Batteries in cars make the most sense, because it decouples "power generation" from "power usage"; the batteries can be filled from energy produced via water, wind, sun, nuclear, coal, fusion, and whatever the next quantum-based energy source is. (Siblings said similar statements, albeit with much more vitriol...)

    --
    I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  195. FUCK THE TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've got thick locking cockpit doors folks, so that game is over. I no longer care what happens to anyone who supports, defends, or even makes excuses for the TSA. Fuck them all.

  196. In an American accent instead of German.. by greywire · · Score: 1

    "WHERE ARE YOUR PAPERS?"

    Whats actually happening today is more scary than these infamous lines spoken in WWII era movies. And we look back at those and sigh in relief that we don't live in that time period now, while allowing the TSA to do what they do...

    --
    -- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
  197. It's a job for pedos and perverts by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    I'm starting to seriously think the job attracts people who get off on feeling up kids, handicaps, etc. They certainly aren't doing it for our safety. After all some were just caught out for letting cocaine into the country. That sort of thing is probably more common than we think.

  198. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    If we're *truly* concerned about this being an issue, we need to start searching all the babies and toddlers as they enter the grocery stores, movie theaters and sports arenas - and definitely at least pat down and wand everyone before they start to use a gas pump at a filling station! Huge potential for disaster otherwise, there.

    But we're not, because there haven't been any major terrorist attacks along those vectors. As soon as they are, expect movement towards ineffective reactionary security theater in those venues.

    Did the Shoe Bomber invent hiding bombs in a shoe? Did the Underpants Bomber invent hiding a bomb in your tighty-whities? Was the concept of a binary explosive unheard of before there was supposedly an attempt? Are none of these things that a TSA based around fighting real security threats would have anticipated?

    No. Instead, they perform some real security (metal detectors, baggage scanners), and then a bunch of security theater on top of that which is designed to make it seem like They Are Doing Something about the "new" threats that show up.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  199. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by zwede · · Score: 3, Informative

    It would go a long way toward ensuring a safer, happier humanity instead of this "Well I carry a gun everywhere because it's better me than him." Are you fucking retarded? Try understanding why someone might flip out and start shooting up a post office, for instance.

    Actually, you'd find it surprising how few crimes are committed by people who are carrying firearms legally. The criminals don't bother to jump through the hoops of registering, training, getting a license, etc. You'd find it even more surprising how many crimes are prevented by armed citizens.

    Not to mention the supreme court has explicitly ruled that it is not the responsibility of the police to protect you.

    True. I looked up the statistics for Texas concealed carry permit holders:

    http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

    If you have a concealed carry permit in Texas you are about 90% LESS likely to commit a violent crime.

  200. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Numbers plz? And source?

  201. That isn't how qualified immunity works. by TheEmperorOfSlashdot · · Score: 1

    A good analogy for this case would be Safford Unified School District v. Savanna Redding, when a 13-year-old girl was strip-searched after another student accused her of possessing prescription-strength Advil. The SCOTUS ruled the search was unconstitutional, yet still held the school officials had no liability because they did not violate "clearly established law."

    The rule, basically, is that the government can wantonly violate your rights and you can only sue if both a) the people violating your rights KNEW their actions were illegal, and b) the government has waived its sovereign immunity.

  202. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by holmstar · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but King_TJ's point is, "So what?". Yeah, some people are psychopaths. That's life. Are you going to cower in fear because of it? Life IS dangerous. Get over it.

  203. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You'd find it even more surprising how many crimes are prevented by armed citizens."

    I would be surprised, because I haven't found any studies that can show me this information. Can you send a link?

  204. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by holmstar · · Score: 1

    The only thing that happened in the last ten years that has made us appreciably safer when flying is adding secure locking doors to the cockpits of commercial aircraft. The rest is theater or has little real value other than to make a subset of the population (mostly the ones that travel on planes only rarely) feel warm and fuzzy.

    If we want to stop bombs from getting on planes, we already have an effective solution: bomb sniffing dogs. One at each checkpoint and we're set. Knives and guns? X-ray and metal detectors works fine. There's no need for all this other crap.

  205. 100% Security can never be acheived by end15 · · Score: 1

    The idea that the TSA can provide 100% security is an illusion. We can easily achieve 99% security at a relatively low price, financially and in rights, but that last 1% costs us everything. We all know that drunk driving kills more people than terrorists in this country. We also know that longer yellow lights and a delay between red & green lights saves lives yet many cities keep those times short to pull in more red light tickets for funding. Like many posters here have stated, we have lost ourselves to the fear that something could happen. It's true that something can and will happen. We have to find a way to accept that and move forward as a nation. As citizens we are now always on high alert for terrorists on planes, and we have shown since flight 93 that we will intervene and prevent mass casualties. We don't need to abuse ourselves any further in the name of the security.

    --
    All glory to the Hypnotoad!
  206. Where do TSA security agents come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Failed hamburger flippers, given a uniform and a little power.

  207. oh the joys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfourtuantly for me this is something i will have to be subjecting myself to soon. The whole mindset of the TSA needs to change. molesting and nuking passengers is not an approprate solution to the "terrorism" problem. Mind you, that since Sept 11, 2001 we have not had any major terrorist incidents in this country. And those who were planning to do harm to the united states were caught with more or less conventional methods rather than newfangled and risky technology. Adding insult to injury, these so called "security areas" that the passengers must endure all forms of harrasement by government staff, those same staff and other employees who work in the area, have a back-door in that they are required to do none of this, not even at random. I suspect if the employees had to endure this, there would be much complaining, and probally quite a bit higher labor costs as well. And Finally, i agree with another poster who said that he would rather die in a terrorst attack than live in a police state.

  208. Don't be too hard on the TSA. by NateWhilk · · Score: 0

    Zey are chust following orders.

  209. wow, 4 +5 informative in a row... On /.? by PaulBu · · Score: 2

    For people with signatures like ours? Unbelievable!

    Or, even majority of mods suddenly become infuriated libertarians when the story is about cure 4 yo girl? ;-)

    Paul B.

    1. Re:wow, 4 +5 informative in a row... On /.? by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      The joke is that I just post "Vote Ron Paul!" whenever I'm not sure if I'll get modded funny, insightful or troll. It's like a drinking game to me.

    2. Re:wow, 4 +5 informative in a row... On /.? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I'm a social democrat (and I mean on the European scale, on American that goes as "pinko commie socialist", I think - left of Dems for sure), but out of the current flock of American presidential candidates, Ron Paul really is the sanest choice. Which in itself is a damn scary thing.

      Besides, no matter what else can be said about this guy, his stance on TSA is clear and consistent, and I don't think anyone here on Slashdot would disagree with his take on that particular point.

  210. Citation please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Citation please

  211. They do it because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason that DHS considers a child a security threat is because they CAN conceive of using a child to blow something up. Conceived and have probably ran the scenario in multiple ways. They assume that everyone is as evil as they are. And that's why we're so very, very screwed.

  212. I emailed my Senators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I figure the GOP-led house is unlikely to do anything, but maybe the Senate might. This is what I sent.

    "Senator,

    Barely a day goes by when I don't read about some sick old lady or toddler being groped by the TSA at the airport. They subject people to groping for refusing to go through the advanced imaging scanners, but the scanners are useless, failing to detect guns and knives, as any simple internet search reveals.

    I'd be willing, but not happpy, to surrender some liberty for real security, but sadly, all I'm getting is no liberty and no real security. What about my right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures?

    The TSA has failed at its job, and airport security should return to how it was pre-9/11. The huge expense it entails can be eliminated, and more importantly, we can stop being a nation that requires children to be sexually assaulted by government agents in order to be "free to travel."

    I want my country back, and I'm counting you to help. I ask you to work with liberals and libertarian-leaning republicans to dismantle the TSA as the first step to eliminating the security state that's been established over the last decade or two."

  213. Of course, the terrorists could by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, the terrorists could F*** you up to six hours after you were dead! (Don't hate, it's in the news today). I think the TSA would limit themselves to groping and heavy breathing.

  214. The TSA was right. by Animats · · Score: 1

    The child's grandmother, Lori Croft, told The Associated Press that Brademeyer and her daughter, Isabella, initially passed through security at the Wichita airport without incident. The girl then ran over to briefly hug Croft, who was awaiting a pat-down after tripping the alarm, and that's when TSA agents insisted the girl undergo a physical pat-down. Isabella had just learned about "stranger danger" at school, her grandmother said, adding that the girl was afraid and unsure about what was going on.

    The TSA did the right thing. That looks like a handoff by someone who's trying to get something past a checkpoint. That's exactly when additional examination is required.

    Using kids and old people to get bombs past checkpoints has been common in Israel for years. The Israelis check women and kids.

  215. Re:Little brat by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

    Travel is not a right.

    Perhaps not directly; however: how am I to pursue this happiness when I keep running into security checkpoints?

    --
    I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  216. TSA can't get their stories straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FTA :

    "TSA released a statement Tuesday saying it explained to the family why additional security procedures were necessary and that agents didn't suspect or suggest the child was carrying a firearm."

    ... later towards the end:

    TSA agents had shouted at the girl, telling her to calm down and saying the suspect wasn't cooperating.

    To be a suspect, you have to be suspected of something. That's the definition of the word, unless they invented a new language that looks and sounds just like English but isn't.

  217. In other words.. by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    Since Timothy McVeigh looks like you, he's an upstanding citizen, right? Don't look at others to justify your bigotry.

  218. Vote LP by mojo-raisin · · Score: 1

    If you don't vote Libertarian, you're an idiot. If you know about the LP, and you still don't vote for them, you're an A@@hole.

    1. Re:Vote LP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with the Libertarians on a fair number of issues, but I am absolutely against the "Free-Market" being the end-all-and-be-all solution to every problem. It sounds great on paper, but in the real world the lack of options, the immorality of mega-corporations, public ignorance and laziness, and last but not least, the overwhelming strength of lobbyests over every-day citizens, makes the "Free Market" solution DoA for so many issues.

    2. Re:Vote LP by mojo-raisin · · Score: 1

      What you are ignoring is that when the Federal Government has reduced power, lobbyists also have reduced power.

  219. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by mojo-raisin · · Score: 1

    To you and all your sympathetic moderators.

    I can do what I want and your fantasy of judging my state of mind is just that.

    Carry on.

  220. Now recruiting pedos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the plus side, perhaps this incident will help clean some of the pedos out of other occupations, like teaching and coaching sports. They'll go work for the TSA, where they'll actually be told to touch the children!

  221. Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    At this point it's obvious you don't deal with security or children (or shouldn't be, at least). Security is pointless if it's compromised, or left to the whims of people involved. I'll pick out a few bits of nonsense

    There are finite resources. If you waste them in stupid places, more important gaps will be left. These is one of the stupid places. Also, the security is already entirely left ot the whims of the TSA, so I'm not entirely sure how you think them being asshats is somehow important.

    No, I'm evaluating the risk of a child being used as a tool for pulling off two complex transfers,

    Which is minute.

    where everyone involved has an unknown level of training. Children of all ages are known to be used around the world as pickpockets and drug mules. When your goal is to maintain security, "common sense" is expecting a hug to be part of the act.

    My god no! There are something like 900,000,000 passengers per year in the USA, of which the TSA has currently found zero terrorists. There is no way that going for a one in a billion chance is even remotely common sense.

    Seriously, you're expecting a terrorist to orchestrate a system involving a complex transfer of a kid between two adults---and bear in mind the kid would have to find the second adult and make a transfer undetected---where the kid has a limited carrying capacity and is phenomenally unreliable.

    And you think it's common sense to go for that less than one in a billion chance where instead you could just bribe the TSA officials into letting you take a bunch of stuff on to the plane, or even easier keep trying to bring stuff onto the plane yourself or even even easier bring on dangerous but unrestricted and hard to detect chemicals.

    You have a strange idea of common sense.

    Also, referring to another post of yours, you have a strange idea of suspicious behaviour if you believe that a 4 year old acting up is suspicious behaviour, as opposed to perfectly normal behaviour with an infinitesimal increase in risk.

    By age four, children are perfectly capable of understanding appropriate behavior, and being patient enough to wait through lines.

    You've never seen a 4 year old act up a bit?

    They're also capable of being used for smuggling. The "sensible" thing to do would be to talk to your kids about appropriate behavior before entering the checkpoint,

    Yes, because 4 year olds are known to be so reliable.

    not assume the TSA's going to babysit your kids for you at the expense of security.

    Like I said they could have just sent them through the scanners again. And if the scanner is too unreliable to be trusted, then looking for ridiculously convoluted and error prone schemes for smuggling tiny amounts of stuff is the most ridiculous and pointless faffing around the edges when there are much more important things to do.

    You have a very, very strange idea of risk versus likelihood. There is simply no point in targeting very low risk, very unlikely events if there are other much bigger risks. I really hope you're not in charge of any really serious security, because if you are, I can imagine you defending against hairy, mad-cap schemes (what if someone air-drops a light tank and starts blasting away??? Better get some heavy anti-tank stuff here!!!), while not bothering to put a lock on the back door.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  222. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to mention the supreme court has explicitly ruled that it is not the responsibility of the police to protect you.

    Kind of different from a lot of other countries. For example Toronto's police force motto: To serve and protect.

  223. Re:Just doing their jobs... by Kneo24 · · Score: 1

    "Just doing their job" is a bullshit response. I don't care what your fucking job is. Use a little common sense. If it seems like a bad idea and you know you will feel bad for doing it, don't fucking do it.

  224. Re:RTFA by Kneo24 · · Score: 1

    Otherwise just forget the whole fucking thing.

    Sounds like an excellent plan. When can we start?

  225. Re:Little brat by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    The TSA agent was yelling at the little kid causing the problem in the first place. People like you make me sick. You think that just because there's a security protocol people stop being human beings?

    Since when did TSA agents qualify as "human beings"?

  226. Re:Little brat by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    Actually, travel is most certainly a right. It's not spelled out quite so explicitly in the Bill of Rights, but it is a fundamental human right.

  227. Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    AFAIC, the real terrorists are the TSA. Who's actually terrorizing people these days at airports? It's the TSA.

    And I agree; they deserve the same fate as that delivered to bin Laden.

  228. Re:Just doing their jobs... by AdrianKemp · · Score: 1

    You're so wrong it's incredible... But then your moral compass has to be pretty out of whack before you take such a job.

    Violating people's "personal space" in this case is molesting them, including children. I don't know how fucked up you have to be in order to not see that as a rights violation, but it's a dangerous place to be mentally.

    Why exactly would I shelter and feed a morally corrupt child molester? Moreover, how would doing so make me a better person morally?

  229. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are forgetting the one thing that makes it necessary.

    Step 4: Profit!

  230. Re:Little brat by cffrost · · Score: 1

    I'm all for protecting our civil liberties, but I'm perfectly fine with TSA pat downs and screening.

    You're a very smart person, but you're actually a fucking imbecile.

    --
    Thank you, Edward Snowden.

    "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  231. cattle, pure & simple by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    You think people are going to give up their rights overnight? HA! It's a little thing called CONDITIONING. People give up freedom for what they think is a little security. You are now conditioned to being searched when you go on a flight. Pretty soon, when you board a train, you will be searched. Then you will be searched even more, when attending a sporting event besides the world series & super bowl. Before you know it, you will be searched for every public event. One day, you'll wake up and wonder what happened to your freedom. Those who give up a little security in the name of freedom deserve NEITHER!

  232. TSA Defends Pat Down of 4-Year-Old Girl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Definitive proof "the terrorists have won"!

  233. I don't see what the big deal is. by idbeholda · · Score: 1

    You can't be too careful these days, and I think they should have given that 4 year old a full body cavity search. Who knows what dangers could have been lurking in her lower intestine that would have posed a flight risk.

  234. Re:Little brat by trifish · · Score: 1

    Travel (as in free movement), yes. Flying, no.

  235. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The most violent cities in the U.S. permit carrying concealed firearms.

    Explain that, please.

  236. What Wichita, Kansas airport is actually like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're not talking about LAX, SFO, JFK.

    At ICT, there are no long queues at the security checkpoints. At most, there are about 20 people. Each individual in line is your typical midwestern patriotic American. There are no suspects and there is ample time to escort both the girl and grandmother with courtesy and respect.

    The whole story is fucking insane and a disgrace.

  237. Fascinating by KlausBreuer · · Score: 0

    So the USA airlines are messing up again. Very fascinating. Utterly.

    Especially to see the article here, for computer guys, who meet to talk about... computers. Software. High technology. Fascinating hardware.

    Not some crap you expect to see in some lower-end news hype.

    --
    Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
  238. Re:Little brat by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    There shouldn't be. If there's a reason to pat down anyone, a policy granting exceptions to children is dangerous and irresponsible. A serious security hole. In reality, there isn't much reason to pat down anybody, except maybe in very specific circumstances, and that policy is an indication that the whole pat down thing, for anybody of any age, is arbitrary, symbolic, misguided and/or dishonest.

  239. Re:Little brat by chrismcb · · Score: 1

    Travel (as in free movement), yes. Flying, no.

    Yes, it is enumerated right there in the constitution along with the other rights that the federal government has....
    Ohhh wait, it isn't. Therefore it IS a right.

  240. Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. by chrismcb · · Score: 1

    Seriously. Just because the child is young and grandma makes an emotional plea we should let her go through security checks unimpeded?

    YES!
    We should also let the next person go through unimpeded, as well as the person behind that person, and the next one, ad nauseum.
    We should let EVERYONE through unimpeded.
    It will save time, money, and I for one would feel safer.

  241. Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. by chrismcb · · Score: 1

    They complain about the TSA being ineffective, and also complain when the TSA follows legitimate secure-area procedure.

    YES! Despite following "legitimate secure-area procedure" the TSA is ineffective.
    Here is the thing... Get rid of the TSA, and your chances of being on a plane with a terrorist does NOT change!

  242. Re:Just doing their jobs... by erroneus · · Score: 1

    It's one thing to sit back in your arm chair casting judgement on others. It's another to actually contribute to the solution. You simply find it convenient to label people as bad without further knowledge or understanding. Your lack of consideration is truly telling about you.

    tl;dr? You want to judge and complain but won't do a thing about it. You are a-pathetic.

  243. Re:Just doing their jobs... by AdrianKemp · · Score: 1

    You're exceptionally high and mighty for the scum of the earth... I find that fascinating.

    I do plenty to help those who deserve it, thanks.

  244. They Hate Our Freedom by backwardsposter · · Score: 1

    Remember this from ten years ago? Maybe this is all a clever plot to dissolve all freedoms. What better way to prevent attacks targeted at freedom? Oh, and decency and respect too, apparently...

  245. Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

    I'm inclined to agree, and the letters to my representatives said as much.

    The TSA's biggest problem is that it exists to solve a problem that's practically unsolvable. If terrorists want to attack the US, they will, period, and airplanes just happened to be a convenient method in 2001. Now with cockpit reinforcements and more air marshals, that's very unlikely to be the easy route again, and it won't carry the same "we can strike anywhere you think we can't" message.

    The TSA should die, and the sooner the better, but making a media circus about an offended parent doesn't help put sanity in airports. Politicians will see the news, know it's spun for reaction, and ignore the whole event.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  246. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The most violent cities in the U.S. permit carrying concealed firearms.

    Explain that, please.

    Okay. I'll explain it in four words: Correlation is not causation.

    Washington D.C. was the "murder capital of the United States". There were 479 homicides in 1991, despite handguns being completely banned from 1977 until the law was overturned in 2007. Carrying a gun, whether openly or concealed, is still banned.

    Now, you explain that.

  247. TSA is clearly untrained with children... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Otherwise they'd know that *all* four-year-olds are uncooperative and suspicious.

  248. Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

    No, it's the problem with all types of "security" employers who hire the bottom-of-the-barrel personnel to do a job that can't possibly be done by them and that doesn't even need to be done.

  249. Re:Of course. (Anonymity in a burka) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not easily. Unless their face is obscured. The solution is easy: you get a good look at their face, or they don't board the airplane.

  250. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll give you a hint: It has to do with desperation and scarcity mentality. There are WAY more than enough resources to go around, and if we actually had a society that valued something besides money ...

    Well, if that's true - that our society values only money - then there are ways to work within that framework to get what we want. The problem is that a critical mass must want the end goal. For instance, we could all find other ways of traveling. I can guarantee you that the airline lobbyists in Washington would have the TSA gone before you could blink twice if air traffic dropped even 20% because people were tired of TSA tactics.

  251. Re:Little brat by saveferrousoxide · · Score: 1

    Couldn't agree more. Setting aside the 4th Amendment and the idea that a pat-down is a worthless means of security, the idea is that the random selection criteria need not apply to low-risk groups while allowing specific suspicions to be investigated on anyone. That flexibility and reason were clearly ignored in this situation. She's 4. This is likely her first plane ride and definitely one the first she actually remembers. She's excited.

  252. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been trying to sell replacing the TSA with a nice person at the top of the ramp who simply asks "Are armed?" prior to you boarding the plan. If you say "no" then they offer you a hand gun to have with during trip and you turn it in after the plane lands. How many terrorists do you think would choose to try some kind of attack on a plane where every other passenger is armed? I imagine one or two would but it would turn out something like:

    "I am taking this plane hostage and I am going to cr" The fight attendant then comes on the speakers and says "We'll start the drink service as soon as we get seats 21a, b, c and 20 a, b,c cleaned up." and thank you to Mrs. Heirvivts in seat 23d for her quick action today.

  253. Re:Blame the politicians and TSA leadership, not w by eriqk · · Score: 1

    They are doing a job. Then need to do it following the policies as best they can.

    That alone is enough reason to hate them. Without their compliance, those policies wouldn't be carried out.

  254. Who are the terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our women and children are more terrified of those who would claim to protect us from terror, than they are of those who would terrorize us.

    Brothers, I fear we have already lost.

  255. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

    You completely missed dripdry's point. He is not talking about the legalities of firearms, nor the fact that they can prevent crimes in progress. What he is talking about is about having a society where people did not fear for their lives due to artificial scarcity, and would then not act irrationally. He is talking about a society where the chances that you would have to stop a crime in progress being reduced to nil because that society's people are generally happy. It's doable, but only if people give up their various religions.

    --
    Social Credit would solve everything...
  256. Yes I hear that a lot ... by dbIII · · Score: 2

    I hear that a lot, but your land where a whole lot of you go off with more confidence in violence than a Chuck Norris character is the place that let barely trained airport security guys get into a position to squeeze all those testicles. While you were all going on in about the rights of the individual an organised group that pretends to have a similar outlook to yourself took them away. It's the politics of "I want to do whatever I want and fuck the rest of you" - and the "rest of you" turns out to be whoever can't afford to bribe the right people.
    Ranting about violence gets you nowhere and carrying out the violence gets you shot in the terminal so the above is really just helpless noise. There's guys you vote for and (sadly for the USA) guys that have those bought and paid for - but they are still vunerable to a lot of people organised to vote another way or boycott the products of those that bribe (face it - "lobby" is usually just a euphemism) the representatives.
    Forget the lone gunman shit and the "land of heroes" mythology. Washington didn't kick British ass alone with nothing but the axe he cut the cherry tree with. I suggest if you care enough band together and do something about it or just be a death statistic or prison number if you try a violent singlehanded reponse.

  257. OMG TSA SCANNER RADIATION FOR MILES! by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

    Are you seriously saying you are going to get radiation from being within MILES of a TSA scanner?

    OMG WTF LOL!

    For that kind of range it would be so "hot" the airport wouldn't need lights, it would glow!

    Also, you have any idea how many medical X-ray machines or even radiation therapy machines are closer to your home than the airport is?

    OMG

    I guess I'd should worry about the Gamma Knife about 5 to 10 miles away from me.

    --
    Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    1. Re:OMG TSA SCANNER RADIATION FOR MILES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, idiot. Try re-reading my previous comment; I never said anything about the airport scanners, much less that they spread radiation "for miles". YOU said that. Don't put words in my mouth, moron.

      I'm saying that the TSA already has jurisdiction over the places I mentioned. I'm saying that next week, they could decide that they're going to install scanners in train stations and bus stops. I'm saying that they could drive vans around with backscatter scanning technology. I'm saying that if you live within ... I think it's 40? ... miles of a major airport, the TSA has jurisdiction over the airspace above your property - which means they can come and search whatever and whenever they want.

      Yes, they would receive public push-back if they tried doing any of those things, but the simple fact of the matter is that they already have full legal authority to do any of them, if they deem it in the interest of transportation security.

      "Stay home or take the bus (or a boat)" is simply not a viable method of avoiding the TSA's jurisdiction.

  258. Re: Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ron Paul's ideas are too sensible for the dumbed-down election system to handle. He will never get elected President, the modern American public are terrified by a leader with brains.

  259. Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! by bratwiz · · Score: 1

    Right, but the job of the TSA is NOT to keep us safe at airports, it's to condition us to accept "authority" and "authoritative demands"-- however unreasonable they may be-- without question. In order to reshape our society into someone's perverted, Hitler-esque dystopian wet dream. The problem, as so many here have bleated so many times in the past-- is that people are sheep-- easily led and easily distracted. The odds of enough of us being able to get it together long enough and well enough to muster up any meaningful resistance are pretty long.

  260. Re:Little brat by xmundt · · Score: 1

    Greetings and Salutations;
              I am not going to quote sources, as it is easy enough to search them out. However, folks that say that "travel is not a right" are totally wrong. Although the right to travel is not explicitly in the Constitution (except as regards legislators), the current interpretation is that it was such an obvious thing that the writers simply did not think it necessary to put it into the document. However, that having been said, it is a fact that the First Amendment does say that freedom of assembly is a basic right of the citizen and cannot be interfered with by the Government. Implicit in this clause is the freedom to travel, simply because it would be impossible for a group of citizens to assemble without traveling to a meeting point.
              Pleasant dreams
              dave

    --
    YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/