Slashdot Mirror


TSA's mm-Wave Body Scanner Breaks Diabetic Teen's $10K Insulin Pump

OverTheGeicoE writes "Savannah Barry, a Colorado teenager, was returning home from a conference in Salt Lake City. She is a diabetic and wears an insulin pump to control her insulin levels 24/7. She carries documentation of her condition to assist screeners, who usually give her a pat-down search. This time the screeners listened to her story, read her doctor's letter, and forced her to go through a millimeter-wave body scanner anyway. The insulin pump stopped working correctly, and of course, she was subjected to an invasive manual search. 'My life is pretty much in their hands when I go through a body scan with my insulin pump on,' she says. She wants TSA screeners to have more training. Was this a predictable outcome, considering that no one outside TSA has access to millimeter-wave scanners for testing? Would oversight from the FDA or FCC prevent similar incidents from happening in the future?"

811 comments

  1. new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    TSA: Nearly killing innocent people, to keep you safe!

    1. Re:new slogan by lgw · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Wasn't there a Cornel (?) study showing that the TSA caused more American deaths (from people deciding driving was better than molestation) than terrorists over a decade?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:new slogan by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Funny

      I prefer

      TSA: bringing more terror to flight than actual terrorists!

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    3. Re:new slogan by lightknight · · Score: 1, Funny

      She was smuggling cocaine inside her insulin.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    4. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

    5. Re:new slogan by jythie · · Score: 5, Informative

      That can be pretty difficult to do with electronics. Any circuit board can act as an antenna, and (apparently) these mm machines sometimes also produce x-rays beyond what one would encounter in normal life, which is what fried the pump.

    6. Re:new slogan by gorzek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Given that this sort of radiation is not typically encountered in everyday activity, why would anyone think to defend against it? Casual use of millimeter-wave scanners is quite a recent phenomenon. Hard to fault the pump's engineers for not foreseeing that one.

    7. Re:new slogan by daremonai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The fears of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

    8. Re:new slogan by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 5, Informative

      If the insulin pump is that easy to break, surely some blame lies there as well?

      We are talking about something that should be required to withstand basically a lot of punishment, because the owners life depends on it - if subjecting it to a small amount of radiation (and no matter how the TSA likes to get piled on here, their scanners do emit a small amount of radiation in the scheme of things) in the course of a pretty routine activity, then the pumps manufacturer needs to look to resolving that flaw with their equipment.

      First, there was absolutely no need for her to pass through any sort of scanner, as is evidenced by her previous flights, when she produced the documentation and was given a pat-down search instead.

      Second, the circuitry wasn't designed for this sort of radiation, since it's never encountered outside a lab - as even the summary makes clear.

      Third, the scanners routinely emit a lot more radiation than the makers claim.

      --
      Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
    9. Re:new slogan by Moheeheeko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      RTFA, wait no, RTFS "Was this a predictable outcome, considering that no one outside TSA has access to millimeter-wave scanners for testing" How can they improve the design when they cannot even test it?

    10. Re:new slogan by gorzek · · Score: 2

      Your bloodstream: the perfect place to hide drugs!

      (Getting them back out might be a tad difficult.)

    11. Re:new slogan by kimvette · · Score: 1

      I wish my mod points didn't expire. So true.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    12. Re:new slogan by ewieling · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Is there anything which will spark or light up or make noise when bombarded by waves?

      --
      I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
    13. Re:new slogan by Adriax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How exactly can it be the manufacturer's fault that their product doesn't withstand energy bombardment from a technology that was unknown to them for the entire duration of the product's development?
      That's like trying to blame medieval armorsmiths for not making chainmail protect against tasers.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    14. Re:new slogan by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You have the same odds of being killed on an airplane by a terrorist as you do being killed by cancer from a body scanning device (1 in 30 million):

      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120405/04390118385/tsa-security-theater-described-one-simple-infographic.shtml

    15. Re:new slogan by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I've seen a lot of back-of-the-napkins showing that they'll kill more than terrorists due to the increase in cancer risk.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    16. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't call something that fails under bombardment of significant microwave radiation "easy to break".

      I don't think companies should be hardening devices specifically so humans can be treated with less care either.

    17. Re:new slogan by Imrik · · Score: 1

      So the needs of the passengers outweigh the needs of the corporations profiting from the scanners? Guess we'll have to get rid of them.

    18. Re:new slogan by reve_etrange · · Score: 2

      Sure. Geiger counters are obvious of course, but they only detect ionizing radiation. When I was at the Exploratorium I used to carry a tiny fluorescent bulb, which would glow in the strong RF fields created by some exhibits

      Not sure what the LOD is, though it must not be that high...actually the railing around the exhibit shown on the linked page was mandated by OSHA (apparently it is normal for them to carry EMF detectors during inspections).

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    19. Re:new slogan by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 4, Funny

      Apparently insulin pumps do.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    20. Re:new slogan by JDG1980 · · Score: 2

      and no matter how the TSA likes to get piled on here, their scanners do emit a small amount of radiation in the scheme of things

      They are supposed to emit only a small amount of radiation. Do we have hard evidence of this from anyone who doesn't have a conflict of interest (e.g. not the TSA or a manufacturer)? Remember the Therac-25 incident. I don't trust the average programmer to write firmware that will work 100% of the time in a life-or-death situation without very careful outside auditing.

    21. Re:new slogan by luigi517 · · Score: 1

      Because those sets of statistics can be related to one another in a reliable manner...

    22. Re:new slogan by berashith · · Score: 5, Funny

      they are relying on that 1 in 30,000,000 person being a terrorist. that way we all win.

    23. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think you were trying to imply it is senseless to avoid these scanners. However this just goes to point out how stupid the effort to prevent terrorism is. The risk is so low even with 9/11 happening that it make no sense to subject people to ANY kind of screening. People should be able to hop on a plane as easily as they hop in the car and drive to work or hop on the subway, a bus, or any other form of public transport ion which has no screening and lots of people.

      Can jets be used as bombs? Yes. So what! There are lots of other more dangerous problems that we should be investing time and money in solving that should be taking precedent. Like cancer, global warming, and education.

    24. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What are the odd my rights will be violated by the TSA vs Terrorists?

      To me, that's a more realistic scenario.

    25. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The odds of being killed by a terrorist are much, much lower than 1 in 30 million, probably closer to one in 3 billion.

    26. Re:new slogan by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      Was this in the United States? Last I checked, the TSA was required to allow people to opt out of the full-body scanners, period. She shouldn't have even needed to produce documentation about the medical implant. The only places I'm aware of where you can't opt out except with medical documentation are the UK and Australia (who somehow manage to out-fascist even the 'States).

      --

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

    27. Re:new slogan by meerling · · Score: 1

      The fears of the few with power outweighs everyone else so suck it up fat boy! - TSA

    28. Re:new slogan by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

      It's more like, the fears of the elected outweigh the rights of the electorate.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    29. Re:new slogan by BubbaDave · · Score: 1

      I am familiar with no research suggesting mm wave scanners emit or cause to be emitted X-rays- cite?

    30. Re:new slogan by BubbaDave · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Chainmail would protect against tasers quite well.

    31. Re:new slogan by SlippyToad · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also, she's getting more radiation on the plane itself than from anything on the ground.

      I guess completely ignoring the fact that she was passed through a scanner that emitted radiation escaped both you and the author of TFA.

      Or, perhaps you just don't give a fuck.

      I'm diabetic, and my wife is. The reason for an insulin pump is because self-monitored injections can no longer keep up with the endocrine system. This young girl is not using a pump for convenience, especially not one that costs $10k. She is using it because it is critical for her survival.

      Downplaying the risks, and the obvious unknown of these body scanners which fuck if anyone knows whether or how they really work, just makes you look like the most incredible god-damn asshole on the planet.

      Just thought I'd mention that. These body scanners are FUCKING SECURITY THEATER that are ADMITTED TO NOT WORK.

      Scanners gotta go. I do not fly anymore and I will not fly anymore until they are gone.

      --
      One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
    32. Re:new slogan by SlippyToad · · Score: 0

      If the insulin pump is that easy to break, surely some blame lies there as well? ...

      We are talking about something that should be required to withstand basically a lot of punishment

      Including unknown radiation hazards? Are you deliberately obtuse, or do you just come by it naturally?

      --
      One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
    33. Re:new slogan by geekoid · · Score: 5, Funny

      When I come to work, I sneak liquor in by hiding it in my stomach.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    34. Re:new slogan by kimvette · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People should be able to hop on a plane as easily as they hop in the car and drive to work or hop on the subway, a bus, or any other form of public transport ion which has no screening and lots of people.

      The TSA wants it to be equally easy as well, which is why they are trying to work their way into harassing citizens ("Papiere bitte") on every mode of transportation.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    35. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      LMFTFY:
      "Also, she could simply said no I dont want to go through. Then they have to pat her down."

      "Also, she could simply said no I dont want to go through. Then they have to molest her."

    36. Re:new slogan by Lurker2288 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Type I diabetes is caused by the autoimmune destruction of the pancreatic islet cells which produce insulin. It has nothing to do with corn syrup or the FDA.

    37. Re:new slogan by SlippyToad · · Score: 4, Informative

      FROM THE ARTICLE:

      She says she was told to go through it anyway. "When someone in a position of authority tells you it is - you think that its right. So, I said, Are you sure I can go through with the pump? It's not going to hurt the pump? And she said no, no you're fine."

      Are people just too fucking lazy to even read before they open their big mouths?

      --
      One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
    38. Re:new slogan by runeghost · · Score: 1

      The TSA already is killing innocent people. Fear (or hatred) of the TSA causes many travelers to choose to drive instead of fly to their destination. Driving is considerably more dangerous than flying. The resulting deaths from increased road travel can be laid squarely at the feet of the TSA.

    39. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why doesn't someone put up some billboards with pithy sayings like this? It would be interesting to see the reactions, from both the public and the TSA.

    40. Re:new slogan by rhsanborn · · Score: 1

      She's a child. She almost certainly has type 1 diabetes which is not caused by her diet. FDA, corn syrup, et al have nothing to do with it.

    41. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fears of the many outweigh the needs of all.

      FTFY

    42. Re:new slogan by kimvette · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More like the needs of earmarked pork-barrel spending benefiting pockets of the few outweigh inalienable rights of the many.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    43. Re:new slogan by Cosgrach · · Score: 0

      Dumbass.

      I know. Don't feed the trolls.

      --
      Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
    44. Re:new slogan by pla · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Also, she could simply said no I dont want to go through. Then they have to pat her down.

      This. I think TFA left out some very important details here.

      I have found myself needing to fly half a dozen times since 9/11. Of those, four have happened since they started using unregulated, untested medical imaging equipment to look for...Well, they don't catch weapons, so who the hell knows what they look for, but not my point (this time)...

      Four times I have refused a scan and requested a patdown. And only once did they even bother asking my "why"; the rest, they just casually directed me to go the taped-off Square of Public Shame for my patdown. And as a humorous side-note, one of those times I made it through security faster than those in the shearing - er, scanning - line.

      So the idea that they "made" her go through just doesn't pass the sniff test.

    45. Re:new slogan by colinnwn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      She is young and might not have known her rights. But she could have told them again that no, she won't go through the scanner but would be happy to submit to a pat-down. They can't treat you any differently in that case. I know, I do that every time I travel. Alternatively she could have refused screening entirely, and potentially been given a ticket or arrested. But they can't force you to go through a scanner.

    46. Re:new slogan by 0111+1110 · · Score: 0

      Have you ever been clocked with police radar? Ka band radar is basically the same frequency as these L3 machines. The only difference is the mmw nudescanners are a lot less powerful. It only has to transmit a matter of inches. The radar guns are often designed to transmit as far as several miles with a strong enough return beam to travel all that distance back to the pork. Your windscreen may attenuate the signal to a small extent, but you are still exposed to more microwave energy than at the airport. Other devices in the 27 - 35 Ghz range are certain satellite dish receivers and automatic door openers in stores.

      While I'm not in favor of these virtual strip search machines because they are overly intrusive and interfere with the basic human right to travel freely, and would even advocate murdering every last TSO and nailing their bodies to telephone polls with signs on their chest that say 'traitor' or maybe a copy of the constitution, the mmw machines are unlikely to be dangerous. The rapescanner x-ray cancer machines are certainly dangerous, but not the mmw machines.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    47. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fourth, an opt-out of the scanner (for a pat-down instead) is still your right. The TSA cannot actually force you to go through. Just stand there repeating the statement that you opt-out of the body scan, and they must relent.

      Or has that changed?

    48. Re:new slogan by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 5, Insightful

      She was a teenager used to following orders by people in authority rather than questioning them and advocating for her own self-interests. In other words a model citizen.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    49. Re:new slogan by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 3, Funny

      God damned pedantic twits bent on elevating themselves by criticizing the syntax of speech rather than evaluating its content.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    50. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who every implied it was a lack of care on the part of engineers? Their job is to ensure the device is built to fulfill its function and endure within required environmental parameters, for a resonable length of time. It's absolutely no fault of the engineering if this type of radiation has been newly introduced or is now encountered at an increased level due to lack of care or concern on the part of Dept. Homeland Security.

      It is most certainly within reason to criticize DHS for failing to protect passengers from the departments lack of care of concern. There's no excuse for endangering someone by requiring, or even suggesting that they undergo a scan when there's a reasonable alternative (a patdown search) and the passenger in question presents legitimate reason questioning the advisablility of undergoing the scan.

      Someone, here at Slashdot, pointed out that the manufacturer recommends removing the device and implied it's the responsibility of the 16 yr-old in question to be aware and exercise due diligience in protecting herself. I would argue that it's no less the responsibility of the operator and/or owner of the scanning system (the underlying technology for which is nontransparent [no pun intended]) to ensure that its not used improperly. Since the entire question revolves around safety and security, as deemed appropriate by legislation and governmental agency, the greater burden of responsibility lies with HDA/TSA.

      Notwithstanding my distain for the heavy-handed approach to 'security' I believe TSA is just another symptom of a massive failure on the part of our increasingly paranoid and militant approach to life in the good ol' U.S of A.

    51. Re:new slogan by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      That's like trying to blame medieval armorsmiths for not making chainmail protect against tasers.

      At least two others have already said that chainmail probably does make a good defense against tasers.
      I wanted to say the same thing, but also offer up a modern example in Thor Shield fabric.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    52. Re:new slogan by 0111+1110 · · Score: 0

      Second, the circuitry wasn't designed for this sort of radiation, since it's never encountered outside a lab - as even the summary makes clear.

      Not true that it isn't encountered outside a lab. Ka band police radar, automatic door operners, and certain satellite TV receivers emit RF at around the same frequency. Now, if you were talking about the rapescanners you'd have a point. I don't know of too many household devices that emit x-rays. The police radar thing is especially troubling. A direct hit from a radar gun would no doubt have an even stronger effect on the device. Not good. Sounds like the PC board in question needs better shielding.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    53. Re:new slogan by dkf · · Score: 2

      Was this in the United States?

      The way it is talking about the TSA might tend to give that impression.

      Last I checked, the TSA was required to allow people to opt out of the full-body scanners, period. She shouldn't have even needed to produce documentation about the medical implant. The only places I'm aware of where you can't opt out except with medical documentation are the UK and Australia (who somehow manage to out-fascist even the 'States).

      I don't know about Australia, but they're only deployed at a small number of airports in the UK. The security fascists run into problems here because the machines are expensive and slow (by comparison with a traditional magnetic detector) and there isn't anything like the same security-industrial complex here to push things through against very tight budget constraints.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    54. Re:new slogan by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Given her apparent level of physical health from her picture in the article you would be safe to assume that (though the article does actually confirm it's type I). However, in general you really aren't on such solid ground to expect incidents of diabetes in children to most certainly be type I any longer for reasons generally assumed to be related to said corn syrup.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    55. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you were trying to imply it is senseless to avoid these scanners.

      That's only if the scanners will catch 100% of the terrorists correctly. If it fails to catch terrorists, then GP implies that going through the scanners doubles your probability of dying when flying.

    56. Re:new slogan by wfolta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How exactly do you calculate the risk of terrorism -- in this case hijacking or bombing? It's not as simple as taking the current number of hijackings and bombings, dividing by the current number of flights, ignoring the fact that screening is currently in place (and has been since the 1970's), and thus "proving" that we don't need screening of any kind.

      And how are you accounting for the "success effect"? At one point in the early 70's there were over 60 hijackings in a single year, because they were fairly easy to do and they fairly easily achieved their goals (and hence were "successful")? If it were as easy to kill thousands or tens of thousands of infidels as walking on to a plane, do you doubt that there would be many more than there are currently? (In 9/11: we were incredibly lucky. Fully-fueled planes crashed into high-density areas and only killed, on average, about 1,000 people each. That's amazingly low, and it of course doesn't count the economic cost, rendering multiple city blocks uninhabitable for years, etc.)

      Not saying that any kind of screening or abrogation of our rights and privileges can be justified. Just not feeling the honor system for flights would work out all that well.

    57. Re:new slogan by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      the scanner produces 3 terahertz of radiowaves.

      Uh. No they don't. Try 27-30 Ghz instead.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    58. Re:new slogan by dark12222000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      She's a 16 year old girl, not a constitutional lawyer. Read the article, and engage your brain a bit, before you open your mouth.

    59. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chain mail, to differentiate it from scale mail, obviously. You lose 125 experience, and are demoted to level 0 Troll troll. (That's Race and class, by the way.)

    60. Re:new slogan by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      they are relying on that 1 in 30,000,000 person being a terrorist. that way we all win.

      That's only what, 12 people in the US? Can't we just put 'em in gitmo and be done with it?

    61. Re:new slogan by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      No, it's just that some people are too stubborn to let facts get in the way of their opinions. After all, this is being done to stop the terrorists. You want to stop the terrorists, don't you, Citizen?

      Sigh...

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    62. Re:new slogan by element-o.p. · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You realize that radiated energy decreases with the square of distance, right? So while the local PD's radar guns might emit a much greater amount of radiation at the antenna, what is the strength of the signal you receive in your car when a cop is clocking you? Also, radar guns are typically located on the bumper of police cars, at least in my area, so how much microwave energy is reaching you through your windshield, and how much is being reflected back by the body of your car? Now, where is the insulin pump located? If you have it on your head, then the windshield might be all that's between the pump and the antenna. However, if it's located closer to the waist, I'd suspect it will be largely shielded by your car.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    63. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Careful, or you might subject yourself to some Poe's Law moderation.

    64. Re:new slogan by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      You, sir, are my new hero. Well played!

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    65. Re:new slogan by RandomAdam · · Score: 1

      LOL I was thinking the exact same thing chainmail = wearing a Faraday cage.

      --
      @Random_Adam

      Sometimes a sig doesn't have to be funny!!
    66. Re:new slogan by preaction · · Score: 4, Funny

      Which 12? Me? You? Let's just toss everyone in gitmo to be safe!

    67. Re:new slogan by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11826&page=7 Um yes they do. I can post the actual specs. The backscatter ones at MY airport run at 3 terahertz. NOT ALL OF THE devices run at the same frequency.

    68. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or she requested a pat down and they informed her that no female TSA agents would be available to perform the pat down until after her gate check and that refusing the scan would result in missing a flight.

      Some people can't afford to miss a flight. Some people believe people in uniform when they say the scanners are harmless to them and their insulin pumps.

    69. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She has diabetes. You could also blame the FDA and the GMO corn syrup and not the pump.

      Type 1, dickhead. It's not caused by evil guvmint bureaucracy or sinister sweetener. Even if it was, she's stuck with it and is just trying to get on as best she can.

      I do not get it... why didn't she just opt-out? You have the right to do that, no? Not anymore?

      That's the fucking point of the fucking story. She said she usually gets the pat down, had supporting docs and they made her go through the scanner anyway. Given that the usual outcome of disobeying a TSA drone is being grounded, she went along with it in spite of her misgivings. The TSA says that's not the usual protocol, but they fucked up her insulin pump anyway. Fuck you are an idiot - didn't you even get past the headline? No, I'm not new here but your comment - with its total lack of comprehension, understanding or curiosity is a particularly spectacular example of stupidity. Today.

    70. Re:new slogan by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      I think mmw imaging technology has been around for a while. Certainly from before 9/11. It just wasn't used in such a widespread manner. Until 9/11 imaging people's naked bodies would have been politically unacceptable. That's why it wasn't used until recently. Not because it's brand new technology. And 27-30 Ghz emitting devices in general have been around for decades.

      I don't understand how this kind of thing could happen. Isn't the device shielded inside a metal case of some kind? If it's not then that is the problem. A medical device like that should be fully shielded. If the problem is that the device is unshielded then just wrapping it in aluminum foil before going through the scanner might work.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    71. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How exactly can it be the manufacturer's fault that their product doesn't withstand energy bombardment from a technology that was unknown to them for the entire duration of the product's development?
      That's like trying to blame medieval armorsmiths for not making chainmail protect against tasers.

      Which it totally would, being a conductive metal shield and all. Great foresight those armorsmiths!

    72. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a 16 year old who isn't yet jaded and cynical enough. She didn't want to make a political statement, she just wanted to go through the security screening.

      On the bright side, hopefully she's learnt that most people with badges are morons and taking their advice is foolish.

    73. Re:new slogan by thunderclap · · Score: 3

      Worked in an airport for two years. Went through security checkpoint over 200 times. Never forced to go through the backscatter machine. She would have missed her flight because she didn't get to the airport early enough. You get there 2 to 3 hours early. Then if the TSA wants to have their head up their ass you have time. Also according to the Americans with Disabilities act, whatever carrier she has a ticket on is obligated to provide her with assistance with forces them to pat her down. They have female superivsers. One would have done it. She was because schedule and didnt push hard enough. The TSA were idiots as usual. They don't want to do any unless forced. Stop the line for a reason they can't get around and you would be amazed how fast a female appears.

    74. Re:new slogan by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      Because that billboard would probably be considered providing material support and get you sent to prison for thirty years.

    75. Re:new slogan by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      They're also illegal for private ownership in NYC...

    76. Re:new slogan by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      You could also blame the FDA and the GMO corn syrup

      No, a diabetic on an insulin pump at age 16 probably has type I diabetes, which has absolutely nothing to do with diet and everything to do with genetics and probably Coxsakie B4 virus. This is why learning things on television and through wikipedia does not entitle you to practice medicine.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    77. Re:new slogan by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      and there isn't anything like the same security-industrial complex here to push things through against very tight budget constraints.

      To be honest I don't know which is worse. In the USA, it's explained by good, old fashioned honest corruption. In the UK, it's explained by what? Lunatics running the country randomly?

      Pick your poison: predictably corrupt asshats or preictably insane asshats.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    78. Re:new slogan by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Interesting link. I went through all 26 pages, but did not see any reference to your 3 Thz scanners. Are the scanners you are referring to made by L3 communications? Are you saying there are different models from L3 that make use of different frequencies? Or are you saying that there are mmw scanners at US airports that are not made by L3? I would very much like to see the specs you are referring to.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    79. Re:new slogan by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      While the common saying "the exception proves the rule" might apply, pretending that the exceptions ARE the rule is bad science. Such a rhetorical device is useful in politics, it might even convince a jury, but has absolutely no impact on facts.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    80. Re:new slogan by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      No, I was implying that using the scanners were senseless. It is an enormous waste of passenger time, not to mention taxpayer money.

    81. Re:new slogan by guspasho · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but my understanding is that to aren't allowed to disobey a TSA lackey's orders. So if she said no, she would have gotten arrested, missed her flight, a $10,000 fine, etc etc.

    82. Re:new slogan by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So the question remains, do cops have side effects from all the radar?

    83. Re:new slogan by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Isn't that what's been done? The US can now be modeled in function as a series of concentric rings of incarceration, with Guantanamo as the extreme axial center, and TSA operating the guarded outer perimeter...

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    84. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are at least two reasons to fly:

      1) To save time (faster than the alternatives)
      2) To save money (especially if a 1-person trip who can't easily split gas and hotel bills)

      Given that TSA adds several dollars of expense and given that it can add as much as 45 minutes or more (how much time is advised by the airline for arriving early), it should be pretty trivial to relating this to death in several fashions

      1) Time in a security line is not living. It is of no more value than being in prison.
      2) The money spent generally adds value unless it specifically saves your life and we must compute the opportunity cost of how that money could be spent (better, $12K insulin pump)
      3) Many may opt for more dangerous means of travel

      Even without "3)" - which is damn near certain factor for any drive under 8 hours, we still have to consider the cost of "1)" and "2)". The current TSA cost estimate is $5.7 billion in 2001 dollars:

      http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/06/30/what-is-the-true-cost-of-u-s-airport-security/

      Of course, the costs of 9/11 aren't nothing:

      The four civilian aircraft that were lost: $385 million.
      Replacement costs of the World Trade Center buildings: $3 to $4.5 billion.
      Damage to the Pentagon building: up to $1 billion.
      Cleanup costs: $1.3 billion.
      Property and infrastructure damage: $10 billion to $13 billion.

      So much for what you could call the hardware costs. The Institute adds in economic effects. They calculate that direct job losses amounted to 83,000, with $17 billion in lost wages. The City of New York lost $95 billion in jobs, lost taxes, damage to infrastructure, and clean-up costs; the insurance industry took a $40 billion hit. And the loss of air traffic revenue they estimate at $10 billion.

      Although many were gung-ho about rebuilding the towers, I wonder if zoning codes might justifiably limit how much damage a building can do if suffering this attack - which is a known flaw and not going away - occurs again. A motivated attacker could pull it off in a manner much as the truthers suspect was actually done (inside job). Passengers can prevent the 9-11 portion, but even if hijackers downed 4 planes a year, that cost including victim compensation may only be a couple billion annually or only a fraction of the security costs.

      This is without considering the cost of time in line or people opting not to fly. Big effing waste.

    85. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well... enough hits my windshield to set my V1 into a brap-fest.

    86. Re:new slogan by MadCow42 · · Score: 1

      Actually, chain mail would probably do pretty well against tasers... Conducting the charge instead of letting it go through your body. :)

      --
      I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
    87. Re:new slogan by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Unless fake-cops are allowed to finger-fuck our babies, then the terrorists win.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    88. Re:new slogan by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Ah, but 'security theatre' is visible, and so in-your-face that you can't escape looking at it. It shows the government is 'doing something', even though it's really ineffective.

      Let's face it, the IRA didn't set bombs off in Belfast every single day for 40 years. Hamas didn't, either. Terrorism as an actuality really sucks if you're a victim, but the chances are much greater you'll be run down by a beer truck than die in a terrorist attack.

      Doesn't stop the media from propagandizing about it and blowing it way out of proportion (for instance, the 'dirty bombs' that were gonna kill us all until somebody blew the whistle on that).

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    89. Re:new slogan by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Accurate statistics in this area are near-impossible to generate. For example: I think that the 9/11 bombings did more to prevent hijackings in the US than screening ever has -- before 9/11, hijackers knew that pilots were instructed to comply with demands. After 9/11, pilots were allowed to carry guns and were protected by an armored door -- and passengers were given the go-ahead to use whatever force necessary to take down a hijacker. I'd say those changes quickly limited anyone's desire to hijack an airplane in US airspace for anything other than destroying the plane.

      I don't know of many people who want to drop screening altogether -- I think most people just want that screening to be more intelligent and less invasive (screening involving intelligent decisions by skilled employees based on metal detector and behavioural analysis results rather than by pressing buttons on a machine).

      Actually, The best solution may be automated as well: fully CCTV the airport, and track each face from the moment it enters the building. All employees will have their ID linked to their faceprint, frequent flyers will be able to do the same, and everyone else will be linked in when they check in, and possibly cross-checked against an overall database. The cameras will then watch for dropped bags, odd traffic patterns, unusual trips to the restroom, etc. and flag the people who are behaving strangely for extra investigation should they approach a security checkpoint. Additionally, anyone who approaches a security checkpoint who hasn't already been tagged entering the building and/or checking in will be automatically flagged. This system should be employed not just on the customer side of the airport, but also on the employee side -- baggage should never go outside of a CCTV zone, and an unauthorized person in an employee-only area should set off instant security alarms.

      With this system in place, I believe we could even ditch the current metal detectors and have significantly better security than is currently in place, while also increasing privacy (because other than during calibration, a person would never have access to the full video feed, only the results).

    90. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but I don't think that this was pedantry. Pedantry usually involves a gratuitous display of knowledge. This was "nitpicking". :-)

    91. Re:new slogan by element-o.p. · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, you are correct: correlation != causation, and therefore, no, we don't know that the MW scanner killed her insulin pump. However, we can't test the theory because TSA, in their infinite wisdom, refuses to allow their machines to be tested.

      As far as the "more radiation on the plane than in the scanner" hogwash, that is a more-or-less apples to apples comparison with the X-ray scanner -- not the MW scanner. First, what are the power levels at which the X-ray scanners and MW scanners operate? Are they comparable? I don't know, and I suspect neither does the commenter from the TFA. Therefore, that argument is invalid without more information. Second, I'm not a physicist, but my understanding is that X-rays have a lot more in common with cosmic rays (what you are exposed to in an airplane) than either of those forms of radiation have in common with microwaves (what she was actually exposed to). Therefore, saying that microwaves are safe for insulin pumps because the cosmic rays at altitude don't affect the insulin pump is a lot like saying UV-B is safe for skin because visible light doesn't cause either skin cancer or sunburn. They operate at different wavelengths, thus they have different effects.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    92. Re:new slogan by dindi · · Score: 0

      Funny how many people attacked over the silly post. I do not think the manufacturer should be blamed for not behaving good when microwaved, so I pointed, that something else could be blamed.

      BTW type II can be cured with diet and in some cases type I too. Happens to be raw vegan diet which most will deny for the sake of enjoying greasy sugary foods.

      That said ... yes ... silly post ...

      Wonder how the part got ignored about them forcing her instead of the one on diet... hmm ... I touched a nerve with the diet issue, or WTF.....

    93. Re:new slogan by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      The strength of the RF field would of course be weaker the farther away you were, but the gun needs to work at a variety of distances from only 50 feet away to several miles LoS. So if you are being shot by the radar while you are a mile away then the signal will be relatively weak, but if you are being shot at from a cop car that is hidden from your view until you are just about to pass him and take a hit from less than 100 feet away then the signal will quite probably be very strong indeed. Also it's not like the cop is just going to shoot at you once while you are far away. He is going to be aiming at you continuously as you get closer and closer. Remember that the beam doesn't have to only make it to your car, it has to reflect off a very imperfect reflector with angled surfaces and a front grill etc and then travel all the way back to the gun, which in some cases might be miles away.The point is that if you believe mmw RF is dangerous then you had better encase your head in aluminum foil when you go out for a drive.

      As for the car's body acting as a shield. It's highly questionable. It may be good enough to protect the device and if it were anything but a medical device that might be acceptable. If it were my life on the line I wouldn't want to rely on that. In terms of general safety concerns however you are getting shot right in the head by what quite probably is a much more powerful beam then the L3 mmw machines are capable of.

      And as far as radar guns being mounted on a patrol car bumper, I have never seen that before. I was just clocked by a cop last night and he was aiming a handheld gun at me. Probably Ka band because those are the most popular these days. Here in New England the handheld guns seem to be the most popular. Probably either Ka band or laser.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    94. Re:new slogan by jamstar7 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's not as simple as taking the current number of hijackings and bombings, dividing by the current number of flights, ignoring the fact that screening is currently in place (and has been since the 1970's), and thus "proving" that we don't need screening of any kind.

      WHAT 'screening in the 70's? Hell, as late as 1968, you could walk onto the tarmac, board a commuter flight, and buy your ticket on the plane. This was going on during riots in major American cities, militant groups screaming armed revolution and having regular shootouts with the cops, and hijackings were common enough that a skit on a national comedy show had a guy come into an airliner cockpit waving a gun screaming "This plane is going to Chicago!", and when he's informed it's already going to Chicago, claims "I was on this flight last week, and we ended up in Havana!"

      All that was done was, they started placing a couple armed air marshals on board the most hijacked flights. No screenings. No patdowns. Yeah, they xrayed your luggage, but that was about it. Hell, they'd even let you smoke during the flight.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    95. Re:new slogan by tburkhol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not saying that any kind of screening or abrogation of our rights and privileges can be justified. Just not feeling the honor system for flights would work out all that well

      There is a vast middle ground between the invasive grope-and-scan system the TSA uses and the pre-DB Cooper honor system. The ease with which hijackings happened in the 70s-90s was largely due to the explicit policy of complying with hijackers demands. This policy was reversed about the same time the second plane hit the tower and, in combination with locked cockpit doors, pretty well assures that hijacked aircraft will not be effective guided missiles again.

      Instead of making an attempt to balance the cost, inconvenience and, yes, risks of ever more invasive screening procedures, TSA throws up the terrorist bogeyman and tells us that if all this expense saves even one life, then it's all worth it. Events like this one serve to remind us that screening procedures, even those involving minuscule risks, when applied to hundreds of millions of people, cause morbidity. Morbidity that is much more predictable (and therefore more preventable) than terrorists. So, the question is: would you prefer safe magentometer-only screening and a 0.0000001% chance of hijacking, or body scanning, with a 0.0000001% chance of cancer and a 0.00000001% chance of hijacking?

    96. Re:new slogan by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Funny

      You have the same odds of being killed on an airplane by a terrorist as you do being killed by cancer from a body scanning device (1 in 30 million)

      BEDIVERE: So, logically...,
      VILLAGER #1: If... she.. has the same odds of being killed on an airplane by a terrorist as she does being killed by cancer from a body scanning device then she's made of wood
      BEDIVERE: And therefore--?
      VILLAGER #1: The TSA are Terrorists!
      CROWD: Terrorists!
      BEDIVERE: We shall use my largest millimeter wave scanner!

    97. Re:new slogan by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      She is young and might not have known her rights.

      Then somebody dropped the ball, either in her high school, or somewhere else. Not informing somebody of their rights is criminal. Somebody needs sued.

      Of course, this is the US, where they don't want you to know your rights so they can push you around that much easier.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    98. Re:new slogan by SlippyToad · · Score: 1

      Type II is not an environmental condition EITHER. Some people get it, some do not. Some people can gain double their weight and not get it. Type II diabetics typically pack on pounds in the belly, and we typically start with hypogycemia (I passed out from it in my early '20's) which makes you hungry all the fucking time.

      Our shitty American diets reveal the propensity for type II, but they do not cause it.

      --
      One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
    99. Re:new slogan by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      http://www.mendeley.com/research/realtime-terahertz-color-scanner-moving-objects/
      http://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/37962/8/04chapter3.pdf I believe this references the L3 200 to 300 GHz ones (.2 teraherz)
      Ours is a SMW passive that runs at 3 thz and is maintained by aligent. As I understand it is uncommon.

    100. Re:new slogan by adamchou · · Score: 1

      50 feet away to several miles

      When I got pulled over for speeding before, I did research on the radar guns they use and I the longest distance I could find in use was 1/4 mile. If someone is shooting from several miles out, they likely aren't using it to manufacturers specifications.

    101. Re:new slogan by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      The police radar thing is especially troubling. A direct hit from a radar gun would no doubt have an even stronger effect on the device. Not good. Sounds like the PC board in question needs better shielding.

      Um, no. Police radars are small, lightweight, and battery operated. They produce a narrow beam in the milliwatt range. All the beam needs to do is bounce off the 'target' and return to the gun. You can run the average radar gun off the cigarette lighter all day and the car will still start. The backscatter scanners have to generate enough signal to penetrate a human body. We're talking hundreds of watts to kilowatts there. Hook one of those mothers up to a cigarette lighter, and if it doesn't burn the wiring out, you'll need a jump start.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    102. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think when 16 year old kids need to be constitutional wizards just to protect their rights when flying (though if she had refused a highly invasive search likely nude would be required since disobedience equals suspicious behavior), that is a sign something is very wrong.

    103. Re:new slogan by pla · · Score: 1

      She's a 16 year old girl, not a constitutional lawyer. Read the article, and engage your brain a bit, before you open your mouth.

      My apologies, TFA fails to mention that her diabetes has already progressed to the all-too-common side effect of blindness. Otherwise, she no doubt would have noticed the signs posted at these TSA chokepoints saying you can get a pat-down instead. Could I trouble you for a link to your source explaining why she can't read?

      And knowing the rules of conduct for an activity planned for your immediate future doesn't require a "constitutional lawyer", just a quick visit to tsa.gov - Which even the "just want to get there" crowd really should check before heading to the airport, just to catch up on the stupid-restrictions-of-the-week.

      Hey, I'll step to the front of the line to call these guys the worst kind of placebo, a damned expensive one at that, and in dire need of immediate dissolution. But gimme a break with all this BS about a poor helpless diabetic 16YO.

    104. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's not like that at all.

      Chainmail would work well to protect aginst tasers. Route the electricity right around your body. Not THRU it.

      Unless they shot you in the face. Then you have other problems.

    105. Re:new slogan by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Did you miss the part where she had explicit instruction from her doctor that the pump should not be taken through any scanners at the airports?

    106. Re:new slogan by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Spock: That is wise. Were I to invoke logic, however, logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
      Kirk: Or the one.

      Killing an individual would be better for society than letting an individual kill bunches of individuals. You make a joke, but that is the way the TSA works. We are not people, we are statistics. There is no way to treat us as individuals.

      Anyone who works with familiar co-workers every day, herding strangers through life, will never see us as individuals. Police, TSA, fast food - there is a bond with the people you know, the "us", and everyone else is "them".

      It is psychologically impossible for the TSA as a whole to be sympathetic to individual situations, including mental illness and prosthetics or implants. It will never happen because of our innate need to group people socially, without drastic changes.

      If it will not work, abolish it, that is the only other option.

    107. Re:new slogan by Nyder · · Score: 1

      ...

      Are people just too fucking lazy to even read before they open their big mouths?

      Hey, that's a requirement for the TSA .!!!

      "Can you read?"
      "No"
      "You're hired! Welcome to the TSA."

      --
      Be seeing you...
    108. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd pay good money for a T-shirt that would light up like the sun when going through one of these scanners.

    109. Re:new slogan by Nyder · · Score: 1

      She was a teenager used to following orders by people in authority rather than questioning them and advocating for her own self-interests. In other words a model citizen.

      I bet she learns to question authority now.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    110. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any one notice the agent said your fine, very different from it won't affect your pump.

    111. Re:new slogan by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's so much more convenient than pouring it in my ass...

    112. Re:new slogan by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      You forgot the 10% chance of successfully bribing a TSA agent to let you take loaded a assault weapon on a plane or the 1.0% chance that a TSA agent is a terrorist, instead of being a drug smuggler, thief, sadist or paedophile. So does the TSA actually make you safer or based on the number of terrorists caught by the TSA versus the number of TSA agents arrested for committing crimes, far more unsafe. Not to forget a whole slue of civil suits against the TSA to be sorted out, so a big hit to the American taxpayer.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    113. Re:new slogan by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Oh Monty Python, you never get dated =)

    114. Re:new slogan by swalve · · Score: 1

      That might be true if it was ionizing radiation. And the backscatter x-ray scanners give a far lower dose than flying in the plane does.

    115. Re:new slogan by tqk · · Score: 1

      If the insulin pump is that easy to break, surely some blame lies there as well?

      You're blaming the victim. How many other sensitive life saving devices also need to be hardened, just to survive a TSA scan? Besides, I wouldn't be the least surprised if the amplitude and frequency spectrum of the scanners varied wildly all over the map. She could simply have landed in a bad scanner (as if they all aren't).

      The last I heard, US congresscritters were writing letters to the TSA demanding third party tests on the scanners to find out what they're really putting out. The TSA says they're safe, so shut up!

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    116. Re:new slogan by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

      Without being sure if the GP is right, you are forgetting about the people who is just walking in the street, near your car. While your car body and the faraday effect protects your belonging, peatons are not thus protected.

      That said, I think the most crucial point here is wavelength. You don't use the same one for tracking a car some hundred meters away and for finding tiny bits inside the clothes of someone who is a few centimeters away.

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
    117. Re:new slogan by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      We're talking hundreds of watts to kilowatts there.

      Do you have a reference for police radar guns only having an output in milliwatts? I guess it's possible. I don't have any power output specs on them, but I would have guessed something in the 1-2 watt range. It doesn't really matter whether we are talking watts or milliwatts. I would still argue that bouncing RF off an object 6" away requires a lot less power than bouncing a beam off an object that is miles away. As far as the nude scanner having an output power from hundreds to thousands of watts that is almost certainly not the case. There is no reason for such high power levels. It wouldn't be cost effective.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    118. Re:new slogan by tqk · · Score: 1

      It's not going to hurt the pump? And she said no, no you're fine.

      Are people just too fucking lazy to even read before they open their big mouths?

      Well, others are stupid enough to believe a Rent-A-Cop's advice when asking about mm-Wave scanners. You do the math.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    119. Re:new slogan by IonOtter · · Score: 1

      Actually, no. No ball was dropped here? The system is performing perfectly, precisely as it was designed.

      Nothing is wrong. Continue shopping.

      --
      [End Of Line]
    120. Re:new slogan by IonOtter · · Score: 1
      --
      [End Of Line]
    121. Re:new slogan by HairyNevus · · Score: 1

      "When someone in a position of authority tells you it is - you think that its right. So, I said, Are you sure I can go through with the pump? It's not going to hurt the pump? And she said no, no you're fine."

      A real-life example of what was shown by the Milgram experiment.

      --
      You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
    122. Re:new slogan by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      The devices you are referring to are not the same ones I was referring to. I was referring to the L3 Communications Provision scanners. You are referring to mostly passive Thz or active laser devices. Presumably those are not devices that you walk into, but devices that you aim at crowds of people or whatever. Another interesting link though.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    123. Re:new slogan by eugene6 · · Score: 4, Funny

      [[Third, the scanners routinely emit a lot more radiation than the makers claim.]]
      This has never been proven, and it *cannot* ever be proven as long as TSA won't allow anyone else to test the machines.
      In the absence of evidence to the contrary, then, these machines must be deemed safe.~

    124. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you might be ignoring is that cancer helps the economy by the revenue generated for hospitals, which are for-profit businesses. Terrorists don't help the economy, the way cancer does, so it is in our best interest to have as many body scanning devices as possible.

    125. Re:new slogan by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      The way it is talking about the TSA might tend to give that impression.

      Not necessarily. I seem to recall reading that the U.S. government has been throwing its weight around with other countries, trying to get them to put those d**n things in airports that send passengers to the U.S., so one could reasonably describe those devices as the TSA's scanners, too, in a roundabout way.

      --

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

    126. Re:new slogan by bratwiz · · Score: 1

      Instead she got the $10,000 fine anyway,

    127. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Circular

      'We get better reception that way'

    128. Re:new slogan by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      Speaking of statistics, who has the lower approval rating: the TSA, or Congress? :P

      --
      ~X~
    129. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fixed that for you:
      The exaggerated fears of the many outweigh the genuine needs of the few.

    130. Re:new slogan by geekoid · · Score: 3, Informative

      Then in 1972, somebody brought and explosive device onto the plane. Fortunatly they were able to land the plane and evac. A k9 unit was brought in, and the found the bomb with 15 or so minutes left. There were three incidents in 1973

      Why you think hijacking aren't worth preventing is beyond me.

      X-rays, metal detectors, and pat downs when the detector alerted where happening in 1969.
      They became mandatory in 73(74?) by Nixon. It pretty much stop the hi-jacking and deaths. Yes, people where killed during hijackings.

      "Hell, they'd even let you smoke during the flight."
      I sure as hell don't miss breathing other peoples poison.

      you want to blame someone? start with Jack Graham.

      The TSA is overboard, but don't go on like safety was fine, It wasn't.

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

      In this case, The "authority" instructed the girl to believe the 'device' would not harm her medical device.

        The authority was not in any position to make that judgement, when medical notes, and obvious electronics dont mix with x-rays when special lead aprons(safety walls) are given to technicians. To think being told by an anonymous TSA agent that getting scanned or running magnetic radio-waves.

          I think had the girl suffered injury from this, the whole TSA operation should be brought to a halt. whether or not they believe the 'sense' of security outweighs a citizens life they are sworn to protect.

       

    132. Re:new slogan by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Don't.

      Just read up on the history of aviation security. Check point and luggage screening cause an over nit decline in hijacking.

      It isn't security theater. It's far worse, it's security stupid. Why? because homeland security want's to control everything.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    133. Re:new slogan by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      And what was this...?

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    134. Re:new slogan by berashith · · Score: 1

      now that you put it that way , all we should do is sacrifice a virgin to a volcano every full moon. TSA gets their headcount, and the rest of us can just board planes without the hassle.

    135. Re:new slogan by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Do you have a reference for police radar guns only having an output in milliwatts?

      This one says it outputs 10mW nominal. They've got a version that looks dash-mounted with the same claimed wattage, so I don't think it's due to being small.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    136. Re:new slogan by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, 1/3rd of the amount of deaths on 9/11 (1) are attributed to cigarettes in the U.S. daily (3). If you consider war casualties to be a side effect of a war instead of a terrorist attack it really is quite easy to have something kill more people than terrorists in the U.S. DUI related deaths killed more than 3 9/11s in 2009 (2). U.S. citizens attempt to harm themselves at rates of 334 9/11s in 2008 and 12 9/11s worth succeeded.

      In the grand scheme of things, very few Americans have died to terrorists. Considering we wasted nearly a decade of war in two countries going after a man that was no where near that theater has me wondering what we could have done in fighting cigarette, alcohol and suicide deaths instead.

      1) Using the figure 2,996 for deaths per the parent comment's questions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11
      2) http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html
      3) http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/
      4) http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/suicide/suicidal_thoughts.html

      --
      by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
    137. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that something else could be blamed.

      And that something else was the girl for not adhering to your new age mystical diet. You touched a nerve with your fucking retarded blame-the-victim mentality, going so far as to assume that it was her fault for being diabetic in the first place.

      And no, you can't fix Type I with diet, because no amount of eating cardboard and twigs will cause your dead islets to produce insulin ever again. If you've got a diet that can undo dead beta cells, by all means, share it with the world. There are diets shown to reduce the risk of developing it (wikipedia cites research showing Vitamin D supplements as an infant and B3 supplements in kids showing beta cell antibodies but not yet diabetic as both reducing risk) but if you can cure it, let's see some research proving it.

    138. Re:new slogan by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      There are 6 billion people in the world, more than 2 were killed in terrorism, so you're wrong.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    139. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, since chainmail may afford protection against tasers (see Faraday cage), those two circumstances are nothing alike.

    140. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TSA: Nearly killing innocent people and costing them thousands of dollars to pretend to keep you safe.
      FTFY

    141. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually chainmail stands a fair chance of providing such protection if it's something like king's mail as it would likely be dense enough to guarantee contact with the electrodes and short out the device. A better analogy would be "platemail protect against bullets".

    142. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The TSA should have to de-commission enough of these scanneers to sell as scrap to replace her pump as compensation and be forbidden from gaining equivalent functionality through a similar device or pat-downs in the locations where the devices where decommissioned. It's the only way they'll learn.

    143. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, chain mail would probably do a great job at protecting against tasers.

    144. Re:new slogan by tqk · · Score: 1

      Remember the Therac-25 incident.

      Apparently not. The post-mortem on that was reported in "Computer" (IEEE Computer Society), July 1993. I wonder if TSA scanners will be found in the future to have adversely affected as many innocent victims, or more.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    145. Re:new slogan by dcollins117 · · Score: 1

      Given that this sort of radiation is not typically encountered in everyday activity, why would anyone think to defend against it? Casual use of millimeter-wave scanners is quite a recent phenomenon. Hard to fault the pump's engineers for not foreseeing that one.

      Your argument is exactly bass-ackwards. Given that "this sort of radiation in not typically encountered in everyday activity" the onus is on the TSA to insure that the radiation does not cause malfunctions in embedded medical equipment.

    146. Re:new slogan by dcollins117 · · Score: 1

      Second, the circuitry wasn't designed for this sort of radiation, since it's never encountered outside a lab - as even the summary makes clear.

      Obviously, it is encountered outside a lab. She was in an airport, not a laboratory.

    147. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't until the very early 1990's that police stopped using handheld radar guns. The reason.... the Michigan state police had 4 or 5 times the national average of testicular cancer, they believe the cause was the officers were setting the gun in their laps when they were not aiming it our the window.

    148. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How exactly do you calculate the risk of terrorism -- in this case hijacking or bombing?"

      Not actually relevant.

      Sorry - the country my parents and grandparents fought to protect was based on a pretty straightforward "the government can do this small number of things to ensure your freedoms, which are yours to do with as you will." They were glad to put their lives on the line to bring us there. We are now at the point where "you are allowed to do a few things, under certain circumstances, pending further review, but the government gets to tell you what to do even if it puts your life at risk."

      A safe prison is not a free country, and you are only a Free Citizen on paper if you can't tell the difference.

    149. Re:new slogan by steelfood · · Score: 2

      Yeah, guess what that got her...

      Almost killed by the people "protecting" her, that's what.

      She's learning the hard way not to trust supposed authority figures. It's a lesson we all eventually learn, just some of us learn it earlier, or at least with less on the line.

      It's not to say that all authority figures should be disregarded, but that there are more stupid people than smart ones, and that relationship holds equally true for those claiming or given authority.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    150. Re:new slogan by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      And what was this...?

      "Clever".

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    151. Re:new slogan by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The X-ray type is ionizing, and although the dose is tiny it is enough to kill a few people with cancer...more than terrorism will, to project current numbers.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    152. Re:new slogan by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      She would have missed her flight because she didn't get to the airport early enough. You get there 2 to 3 hours early./quote>

      Yeah, she's a lazy sinner who should've known better than to violate the tenets of the traveler's creed. We should punish her by bumping her to the next flight, effectively a four or five hour incarceration because to leave and come back would involve the same hassle.

      Or, maybe we should consider that the point of air travel is to get there faster. If you tack on an extra three hours, you're not helping things be faster. There is no fundamental reason why you should have to arrive three hours early, and plenty of reasons why it should not be a significant impediment if you do not. The security line, for instance, should *not* become a bottleneck which is actually a more enticing target than the thing it's supposed to protect....

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    153. Re:new slogan by VanGarrett · · Score: 1

      I am a diabetic, and I used to use such a pump. These pumps can take an amount of physical abuse reasonable for the normal life of a teenager, and maybe even a physically active teenager (though mine came with a special air-tight and shock-resistant case, for use when swimming and participating in sports; it wasn't actually very useful-- the water when swimming and the sweating while playing sports typically caused the catheter at the injection site to fall out, rendering the whole effort moot). They're fairly sturdy and built to any reasonable requirement a person might have on them in everyday life, but they're not indestructible. I had to have mine replaced under warranty, as it spontaneously fried itself one day. I can only speculate at what caused the failure in mine; I am suspicious that it may very well have been a moisture problem related to being in the front pocket of my jeans as I wandered around.

      In any case, my point is, insulin pumps, while they are typically rather robust, are not much more resistant to failure than any other electronic device a person might carry on themselves. If it'll fry a cellphone, you can bet that it'll fry an insulin pump.

    154. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ignoring the fact that screening is currently in place (and has been since the 1970's)

      Well all that intensive screening really worked out well for you in 2001, didn't know the TSA has been around since the 70s

    155. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chainmail should protect pretty well against tasers. A bunch of interlocking conductive rings is a much shorter path for the electricity to take.

    156. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dividing the number of people alive today by the people who have ever been killed by terrorism will not give you the chance of being killed by terrorism.

      you're better off using the number of people who have ever died within a certain date range and the number of people killed by terrorism in the same date range.

      you'd then probably want to filter people from both groups based on certain things e.g. geographic information to get a meaningfull figure.

      then theres probably outliers you might want to remove.

    157. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      correlation != causation

      fuck, that cliched phrase is overused on /. now by arguing uselessly like TSA scanners, stop using it.

      Insulin pump stopped working after scanning in TSA's scanner and it would have been dangerous.

      Only thing to do is finding out an alternation solution.

    158. Re:new slogan by QQBoss · · Score: 1

      Did you miss the part where she had explicit instruction from her doctor that the pump should not be taken through any scanners at the airports?

      A doctor is not an engineer of electrical devices and as such has zero qualification to write a letter saying that any device should or should not be passed through a scanner. That said, the doctor absolutely has the qualification to pass on a recommendation from the manufacturer who probably state in the warranty that putting the device into a focused EM field qualifies as bad idea. Just showing the paperwork from the manufacturer should be enough to allow the device to bypass the security theater scanners. Well, unless the manufacturer (or doctor) is from Yemen, for example (mostly joking).

    159. Re:new slogan by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the TSA is oh so wrong for acting as though the medical device meets basic FDA and FCC rules about not being fried by interference.

      So if her pump fried while using an iPhone, I bet you'd not want her to sue then.

      If it is that fragile it needs to be recalled.

      Should the TSA assume everything is so fragile it is going to break, or make reasonable assumptions and have broken by design devices recalled.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    160. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironically, chainmail probably does in fact protect against tasers. Just saying.

    161. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FROM THE ARTICLE:

      She says she was told to go through it anyway. "When someone in a position of authority tells you it is - you think that its right. So, I said, Are you sure I can go through with the pump? It's not going to hurt the pump? And she said no, no you're fine."

      Are people just too fucking lazy to even read before they open their big mouths?

      Well, I hope this taught her a valuable lesson, though I kind of doubt it: People "in a position of authority" are not inherently better or more competent than you are, in fact, in many cases they are worse and a position of power (which is what "authority" ultimately is) tends to have corrupting effects on people.

      Children are often routinely taught to "respect authority" or "trust a person in authority" like teachers, police offices, etc. but this is, in fact, really bad advice. Due to training, those people tend to have more predictable behavior than a random stranger, but it still isn't always the behavior you want nor are they necessarily better people. While it doesn't warrant paranoid suspicion (just like there is no reason to have any paranoia about strangers), an automatic and complete trust in authority figures not only may prove ill-guided, but also degrades your own self-worth unnecessarily.

    162. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where can I buy the bumper sticker? That would sell great!

    163. Re:new slogan by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      The amount of disinformation that has been modded up in the comments here is astounding even for slashdot. These are just facts and there is no reason for them to be controversial.

      The wavelength of the L3 ProVision pornoscanner and Ka band police radar is in fact basically the same. Ka band radar is very slightly higher in frequency.

      Just out of curiosity why do you believe that you cannot use the same wavelength of RF for doppler radar and imaging applications? I don't follow.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    164. Re:new slogan by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      You realize that radiated energy decreases with the square of distance, right?

      No. But in my defense, that is because that's not true. That is only the case when the radiation goes equally in all directions. A radar gun focuses the energy in a much more concentrated beam. Therefore, the falloff is far less.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    165. Re:new slogan by Mabhatter · · Score: 1

      Except the failure is that the passenger EXPECTED them to go,look in a book or call a supervisor about a technical, medical, and life it death matter. The issue is that THIS PERSON did EVERYTHING RIGHT. They informed the screamer, they showed the screener, the brought proper identification from a doctor for the device including a medical recommendation not to subject the device to scanning.

      A medical device like this is critical. Does a TSA minimum wage lackey have the expertise to decide a doctor's recommendation. They fried a $10,000 device because the agency clearly does NOT provide the proper training for situations that WILL happen, or a hotline to a supervisor that IS MEDICALLY QUALIFIED to make that decision. From previous discussions here, the TSA management would not consider themselves liable if this agents malpractice had caused this girl to die. According to them it is an acceptable unforeseen loss.

      In a way this was of course a set-up... The girl going through the scanner KNEW THEY WERE INEPT but chose to properly follow their instructions. That's a real trooper!

    166. Re:new slogan by Mabhatter · · Score: 2

      The TSA's OWN scanners don't meet the FDA and FCC standards for safety to scan HUMANS. So do many other things at Airports because Airplanes, radar installations, etc are all special cases with gobs of rules. That's why patients are warned.

      Medical devices are exempt expectation of "blocking" interference because the sensitivity required to interact with the human body are fractions of what an average electronic device outputs.

    167. Re:new slogan by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The note of a doctor that has read the paperwork from the manufacturer or even a warning sticker on the box should be enough.

    168. Re:new slogan by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      She has diabetes. You could also blame the FDA and the GMO corn syrup and not the pump.

      I do not get it... why didn't she just opt-out? You have the right to do that, no? Not anymore?

      If you walk up to a search station, see them searching and decide to walk away, they are going to search you whether you like it or not.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    169. Re:new slogan by ATMAvatar · · Score: 2

      That's fine, if we are talking about cold, hard, statistical thinking. It's just that... should we really go that route, we have no choice but to eliminate the TSA altogether.

      tl;dr: the TSA indirectly costs more in terms of money and loss of life annually than the cumulative costs in money/life due to terrorism back to and including 9/11.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    170. Re:new slogan by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      A safer rail system was canceled in the UK for exactly that reason. The extra deaths from driving while they put the thing together far outweighed the saved lives from potential train crashes.

      Can you find a link to the TSA/driving study?

    171. Re:new slogan by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      She was smuggling cocaine inside her insulin.

      Doesn't even matter. The TSA are meant to ensure the safety of air travel not dictate what is and isn't allowed in people's blood streams.

      The TSA should not be allowed to subject medical devices they can't understand to radiation that they also can't understand. If I started shooting mazers at wheelchair users people would think I was a looney.

    172. Re:new slogan by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      Its really surprising to me that mm-waves would interfere with electronics, the average power levels are low (mm wave sources are EXPENSIVE), and would have a difficult time making it though the packaging.

      However... THAT IS NOT THE POINT! If she had any reason to believe that the scanner might cause her harm, and especially with a doctor's orders, she had a right to a manual pat-down.

    173. Re:new slogan by fearofcarpet · · Score: 1

      Indeed, it is like staring into a kW bank of stadium lights from behind home plate versus placing a mW high-intensity LED directly in front of your eyeball. Not to mention that, regardless of the theoretical risks of mm-wave scanners they haven't been approved--or even tested--by the FDA or seriously scrutinized by any impartial body. But we're all supposed to be so afraid of terrorists that we just take the word of a for-profit company that stands to make millions in government contracts that "hey, they're safe, we like... tested them and stuff." No amount of math can compete with double-blind studies, clinical trials, or basic empirical observation. Look at trans fats--for decades we thought "eh, cis, trans, it's all the same--just an alkene" and then study after study linked that seemingly insignificant isomerization to heart disease. And, by the way, in the UK you can't even opt out of their X-ray back scatter machines because the EU tested them and the does is "lower compared to other sources, such as cosmic radiation." Of course, as we now know from dental X-rays, the effects are cumulative over a lifetime, but the increased risk of cancer is certainly worth making politicians look tough on terrorism!.

      --
      Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
    174. Re:new slogan by SandorZoo · · Score: 1

      though the article does actually confirm it's type I

      Yes it does. From TFA: "Savannah, who is a type one diabetic and wears an insulin pump 24 hours a day"

    175. Re:new slogan by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I've said for a long time that if there's another 9-11 it'll be an inside job.

      inb4 tinfoil hatters claiming the last one was too.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    176. Re:new slogan by element-o.p. · · Score: 2

      Technically, she had the right not to be microwaved regardless, but yes, your point is otherwise spot on.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    177. Re:new slogan by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Something doesn't add up. The post I replied to claimed that radar guns have to be more powerful than mm wave scanners because they have to operate over a long distance. You tell me that radar guns don't attenuate geometrically because the beam is focused. But it can't be both ways. Either radar attenuates with distance and therefore radar guns have to be significantly more powerful than the scanners (and therefore it is accurate to say that a radar gun at close range proves that MW radiation is harmless to insulin pumps) or they are focused beams and the difference in radio energy at 1 yard and 1000 yards (for example) is negligible (in which case radar guns aren't significantly more powerful than the airport scanners because they don't need to be).

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    178. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well considering I remember reading about TSA doing random car and truck searches on certain highways and arresting people who refused, they want to make all travel similar to how it is to get on a plane.

    179. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Photons lose energy with distance? No. Maybe they expand into a greater area, or maybe not so much.

    180. Re:new slogan by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Re: a car body as a shield for MW radiation. Just think it through. To show up on radar, the car must reflect the radiation back at the cop, right? How does it do that if the radiation passes through the car to the medical device inside?

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    181. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pumps are VERY well made and very expensive. TSA should be more aware, knowing their equipment can pose a health risk to people with high tech medical devices. They were in the wrong. The average Joe...especially a kid, is not going to understand the dangers, and she had done everything right. She had the required medical note, and presented it. The company that makes the pump makes an excellent product!

    182. Re:new slogan by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      What rights... for starters the border areas are constitution free zones... and secondly the constitution has been suspended since 1933 after FDR took emergency powers. Those emergency powers have not been rescinded and the constitution is still in abeyance. google it, it's true...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    183. Re:new slogan by blindseer · · Score: 1

      This is just one of many reason that I want to see the need to have a license to drive. They cannot ask for papers if there is no requirement to have one.

      The license to drive has become a bane to our freedom. The license to drive has become the de facto internal passport in this country. Since nearly every adult drives in this country it has become common for people to have one on them at all times. Police have been trained to ask for a license during every traffic stop and people have been trained to comply. This has translated into an almost reflexive routine with every encounter between a citizen and government official, may I see your drivers license?

      Its been years now that I had to take a bus but it was only after I got my license back from the ticket agent did I realize the oddity of the action and how quickly I responded. The ticket agent asked to see my drivers license and I gave it to him. He looked at it for a few seconds, seemingly to verify it was not faked or altered, and then handed it back to me. It was that seemingly innocent incident almost a decade ago now that got me very upset.

      The government has now made it nearly impossible to travel in this country without ID. Getting on a plane, train, or bus has become exceedingly difficult without having to show a state issued ID. This all started a century ago with the requirement to have a license to drive as a matter of safety. How does a piece of paper keep me safe? It does not. We've handed over our freedom to travel out of an empty promise for our safety. I think it is long over due for us to take our freedom back.

      We need to get rid of the drivers license.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    184. Re:new slogan by rioki · · Score: 1

      Killing an individual would be better for society than letting an individual kill bunches of individuals.

      Actually you got it backwards. We are currently seeing more problems (deaths) from TSA than terrorists. The reason why TSA came into being is so "few" are not killed by terrorist and to achieve this the many need to be molested a bit. The security tradeoff used to be biased to the other side where a few deaths by terrorists was an accepted risk. They implemented the basic things to reduce that risk but we are past the point where further gains are only achieved with a significant cost.

    185. Re:new slogan by rioki · · Score: 1

      I think the safety measures in the 90s where about the point where the cost/effort was balanced. One of the things that went wrong during 9/11 was that they assumed, like any other hijackings before that they would land the plane and demand something. If you add all the real security they added to the plane, like the reinforced cockpit door, you have a mix should strike the right balance. TSA is actually only there for people to feel safe...

    186. Re:new slogan by thej1nx · · Score: 1
      What I find really interesting is that a bunch of foreigners conduct a terrorist attack on USA, and the geniuses in the US government promptly start surveillance on its *own* citizens and promptly treating its *own* citizens as suspected terrorists, without any rhyme or reasons for doing so. And the "intelligent" American public meekly accepts this with just a few grumblings.
      .

      I mean, just a good old x-ray should be sufficient if you prove that you are a citizen(with help of SSN, passport, birthcerificate or whatever). And if the US government thinks that some terrorists(like that guy from pakistan) have acquired US citizenship, then maybe they should fix that process regards granting of citizenship in the first place? If you feel the need to cover fringe cases like the pakistani guy, shouldn't your surveillance and extra security measures cover at least just those first generation immigrants instead, instead of treating the entire populace as terrorist scums?

      If someone questions why such a big issue is being made of 5000 people dying when hundreds of thousands die in just road accidents every year, he is slimed for being "insensitive" to the families of those 5000. Fine, but how on earth do you guys turn a blind eye when some rich politicians decide to cash in on the tragedy and suffering of those same families to sell fake expensive equipment in name of security theater and kickbacks? Is THAT not insensitive? Is that not shameful? Is that not a disgrace?

      Seriously, why on earth are there no serious protests against folks who decided to start treating the US citizens themselves as suspect terrorists? How can these folks suggest such a thing and still remaining your elected leaders

      And then we wonder why Americans are stereotyped as being dumb...

    187. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TSA: Terrorist Support Alliance

    188. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should be noted that entirety of scanning in Australia consists of a metal detector (and an X-Ray machine for your bags/metal items). Documentation is just to tell them why the hell your chest is beeping. At least as far as I'm aware, there's no such thing as a pat down in our airports.

    189. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .. but they still sexually molested her afterwards right? Even though she went through the scanner?

      If so.. what is the point of the scanner?

      I can't believe that Americans allow themselves to be sexually assaulted on a daily basis.. seriously, people need to stand up for themselves. Lots of people are going to be arrested in the mean time.. but then.. a long time ago it took a lot of courage for a black woman to sit in a white bus while a law said it was illegal to do so

    190. Re:new slogan by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Any object that can be lethal to others on accident (a car, a gun) should require a license to use and to have. Most people are morons who do not know how to use dangerous objects safely. The license should at least require the knowledge of how to use it safely.
      I am glad it's difficult to get a gun in the Netherlands. I am glad it's difficult to get a drivers license in the Netherlands.
      Gun included based on your signature.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    191. Re:new slogan by Roger+Lindsjo · · Score: 1

      Last time flying to and in USA I had to insist to get the pat down. The situation was basically the same in Atlanta, JFK and Newark, when asking to not go through the full-boy scanner I was first told that every one has to. When insisting I was asked why, and finally they removed the barrier (Newark had no barrier) so I could go through the metal detector. I was then made to wait for someone to come over and do the pat-down.

      I can easily understand why someone would thing that you have no choose when the choose you have is closed of, you get information that you should not use it and when you insist you get question of why by a uniformed person that most of us have been trained to obey.

      To be fair, the persons actually doing the pat-down were nice, professional and informed me along the way what they were doing (although they seemed quite worried about being accused of groping).

    192. Re:new slogan by ch0ad · · Score: 1

      "Hell, they'd even let you smoke during the flight."
      I sure as hell don't miss breathing other peoples poison.


      Fun fact: Air quality on planes was better when you could smoke, as they had to pump fresh air in all the time. Now we breathe recycled air because it saves money.

    193. Re:new slogan by thej1nx · · Score: 1
      Are you sure, you yourself are not suffering from diabetes induded blindness? Article clearly states that she WAS requesting for a pat-down. She went to agent and showed him documents which said that the equipment should not go via the scanner. She said she usually always went for the pat-down. The main issue you seem to be whining about is that a 16 year old kid did not communicate more assertively and clearly. And apparently you have no knowledge of milgram experiments either. How DARE a 16 year old not act in a mature and adult manner and request for a pat-down in a VERY clear and specific manner, instead of just telling the goon-in-uniform "I usually do a pat down - what would you recommend?"
      .

      So what are you doing to keep the 16 year old and younger kids informed to visit the tsa.gov website? Are you visiting the schools personally, or is this some genetically encoded knowledge that they are supposed to be born with?

      And since you are so particular about reading every single thing posted everywhere(what with all the tons of signs, brandsigns, advts littered around and such "white noise" that daily train you NOT to read stuff unless you are actually looking for some info), can you tell me what does point #3 on the logfiles section on privacy page of slashdot, says *without* going and looking at it, right now? I mean you must have looked at it at some point when you came to use this site and must be be keeping in mind all the time?

    194. Re:new slogan by thej1nx · · Score: 1

      Nice tactic. do *you* have a link that says it is 27-30 Ghz(a link that is not by the self-interest-invested manufacturer but an actual certifying authority). What? They will not share the specs with anyone but TSA? And TSA won't share them with anyone? These L3 communication scanner machines are NOT FCC/FDA certified? Too bad!... no interesting links from you, I guess.

    195. Re:new slogan by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Killing an individual would be better for society than letting an individual kill bunches of individuals.

      No, it devalues all human life. It would be better to prevent that individual from killing others and then bring them to justice, hopefully leading to their eventual reform.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    196. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it too much to expect the TSA staff to also be able to read the same signs? They even work there, they should *know* that she was entitled to a pat down, they might have cared to suggest it...

    197. Re:new slogan by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 1

      Well, a number of autoimmune disorders are strongly correlated with government-approved (and sometimes government-mandated) vaccines. Even the government admits this. There's no proof of causation, yet, but there is more than sufficient reason for concern and further study, preferably by disinterested parties (not governments *or* drug companies, who, jointly, fund the vast majority of research currently being done).

    198. Re:new slogan by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      It's not as simple as taking the current number of hijackings and bombings, dividing by the current number of flights, ignoring the fact that screening is currently in place (and has been since the 1970's), and thus "proving" that we don't need screening of any kind.

      Actually it is. And you can look at other areas that don't have screening to do your "proving."

      If it were as easy to kill thousands or tens of thousands of infidels as walking on to a plane, do you doubt that there would be many more than there are currently?

      No there will be 0 more than there are currently. Because it is as easy to kill thousands or tens of thousands of infidels as walking on a plane. (since when does walking on a plan kill 10s of thousands?) There are many places were you can target several hundred individuals. Shoot the TSA security line is one such place. A busy shopping mall, a school, any sporting event, an office building. These are all easy targets, they aren't commonly targeted. You can apply the same logic, a plane is an easy target, why would it suddenly be targeted when none of the other easy targets are targeted?

    199. Re:new slogan by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that you only get the nude scanner or the magnetometer, not both. Since the nude scanners don't work if an object is turned sideways to them it seems like your chance of being killed by a terrorist is probably a bit higher where they are in use. Still insignificantly small, but also still worse.

      The fact that they just stopped a second pants bombing attempt suggests that the terrorists think they can sneak one past these security measures. The terrorists appear to be smarter than the TSA - they identified the actual flaw in their plot (passengers preventing detonation because it took too long as was difficult) and tried to improve on that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    200. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that in the 70s-90s there where many cozy dictatorships where you could safely land your hijacked airplane to get away. Today though there is not many such "safe havens" for hijackers to land anymore.

    201. Re:new slogan by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      Of course, what was I thinking, seeking perspective is "trolling" and hyperbole is "informative". Just another day on slashdot. Enjoy your war with the TSA, but just so you know, you are losing it thanks to rants like this. Learn how to make an informed argument and you might contribute constructively to the debate. Karma? Don't need it.

    202. Re:new slogan by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      This is why learning things on television and through wikipedia does not entitle you to practice medicine.

      They just had incomplete information. GPs are only walking medical encyclopaedias. There's very little which you're likely to encounter which you couldn't diagnose yourself with a modicum of sanity and an hour on the internet. After that, it's algebra: A + B + C = X. As long as X isn't Lupus. It's never Lupus.

      Drink two shots if it's a para-neoplastic syndrome, though.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    203. Re:new slogan by dindi · · Score: 1

      Google "raw for 30 days". I own the DVD that documents an experiment on several people with diabetes. 2 of them were type 1, one was cured, the other reduced insulin use to fractions of what he was taking.

      Alternative diet cured my asthma, my allergies and several medical conditions while medicine and doctors couldn't for years.

      I am sorry for you that you do not understand this, nor have the balls to post under your own account.

      I do not blame the victim for her diet, it was a joke, imposing that it was as stupid to blame the manufacturer as it would be to blame the victim, her diet or authorities to allow the sale of GMO/corn syrup. I blame the TSA assholes and the girl's decision to go with the scanner instead of trusting her doctor on that one.

      If you fail to understand these, well, then the insults are on you sir, your mentality is retarded.

      peace ...

    204. Re:new slogan by dindi · · Score: 1

      You walk up to the metal detector lane, you stay there. I understand it is hard to argue with a bunch of uniformed bullies when you are a 16 year old girl, but unfortunately that is how an airport works nowadays. You have to suck it up or take the bus/train.

      I loved to fly (back in Europe, pre-911), now just approaching the entire procedure makes me want to literally throw up. The situation annoys me, that I have nothing to hide, but I have to convince a bunch of uniforms that I am innocent while they want to put me in an unsafe machine or touch my balls, possible search my asshole.... Just a sick concept that makes me mad.

    205. Re:new slogan by swalve · · Score: 1

      But the radiation absorbed during the plane ride will kill, and has been killing all along, an order of magnitude more people. Technically correct, but functionally meaningless.

    206. Re:new slogan by godefroi · · Score: 1

      Can jets be used as bombs? Yes. So what!

      Well, actually, no, not anymore, not since cockpit doors were armored. The terrorists might kill everyone on board, they might even bring down the plane, but it's safe to say that no more passenger jets will be intentionally flown into specific targets.

      --
      Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
    207. Re:new slogan by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 1

      It wasn't until the very early 1990's that police stopped using handheld radar guns. The reason.... the Michigan state police had 4 or 5 times the national average of testicular cancer, they believe the cause was the officers were setting the gun in their laps when they were not aiming it our the window.

      That adds a whole new meaning to the term "radar trap."

      This is another example of how things that are obvious in retrospect may not be so at the time. Another example is the problem motorcycle cops had from constantly wearing gloves, esp. in colder climates, where thicker gloves are worn - eventually it lead to circulation problems in the hands, "pins and needles", and nerve damage.

      --
      Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
    208. Re: new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they are relying on that 1 in 30,000,000 person being a terrorist. that way we all win.

      Are there only 10 terrorists in the US?

    209. Re:new slogan by gorzek · · Score: 1

      I said it's not the fault of the engineers, so how does that turn into me blaming the engineers? Obviously, I place the blame with the TSA.

    210. Re:new slogan by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      I had to have mine replaced under warranty, as it spontaneously fried itself one day.

      Could have been RF. More than just the TSA scanners put out RF.

      Heck, I have 2 devices which put out RF within 3 feet of me right now. Not counting the PC.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    211. Re:new slogan by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Her broken as designed pump that our medical industry inflated the price of to $10K broken.

      Likely the parts are only $200 MAX, probably less, likely made in China junk, $50 or so, the rest of the cost goes to profit and R&D, FDA costs, etc.

      She was given a new device, hopefully one that won't fry. Likely not, likely the same broken model. She should stay away from anything RF, even give up a cell phone

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    212. Re:new slogan by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1
      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    213. Re:new slogan by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      She didn't opt out because she trusted authority. The TSA screener told her she would be fine going through with the pump, when the screener clearly had no idea if that were true. But people are well conditioned to trust authority and not challenge it. Ask Stanley Milgram, he knows.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    214. Re:new slogan by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Your bloodstream: the perfect place to hide drugs!

      (Getting them back out might be a tad difficult.)

      My liver and kidneys handle that for me.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    215. Re:new slogan by n7ytd · · Score: 1

      They're also illegal for private ownership in NYC...

      What, Geiger counters, or fluorescent bulbs?

    216. Re:new slogan by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if you're simply agreeing with me or your brain superimposed "doesn't" over "does".

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    217. Re: new slogan by berashith · · Score: 1

      depending on who you ask , there are up to 311 million .

    218. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever placed metal in a microwave and turned it on?

    219. Re:new slogan by bkcallahan · · Score: 1

      Aren't there 12 members of the Supreme Court?

    220. Re:new slogan by bkcallahan · · Score: 1

      Well crap. There's only 9. Anyone have suggestions for the other three spots open?

    221. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Save one from the supreme court, add these four: Current and immediately former Presidents and Vice Presidents.

    222. Re:new slogan by reubenavery · · Score: 1

      How very Dante's Inferno of you.

    223. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aw ... so you are also against abortion as well. That makes a few of you on Slashdot.

    224. Re:new slogan by blindseer · · Score: 1

      So, we should have a piece of paper to have a swimming pool? A bathtub? A toilet? A water pail larger than an infant's head? A lot of people die from drowning.

      How about step ladders? Stairs? Or a roof higher than four feet? People die from falls.

      What of kitchen knives, ovens, large skillets? A lot of people end up dead from kitchen accidents or from being attacked by someone wielding a kitchen implement.

      What of baseball bats, golf clubs, and hockey sticks? All of those have been used as weapons and have caused numerous injuries as a result of their intended use. Should we need a piece of paper issued by a government agent to purchase, own, or transport these items?

      Claiming that we need a license to possess any object that can be lethal is nonsense. A plastic shopping bag can be lethal if placed over a person's head. A brick can be lethal if thrown with any force at another. A belt can be lethal if wrapped around someone's neck. There are all kinds of things I can think of that can be lethal to another if used to suffocate, bludgeon, or cut another.

      Explain to me how this piece of paper is supposed to change any thing? How does the piece of paper prevent a person from picking up a brick, rock, tree branch, or tire iron and beating another to death with it?

      How does the piece of paper keep a person from driving a car? It doesn't. There's all kinds of people driving today without a license. It's not like this piece of paper radiates some sort of aura about it that keeps a car from starting if it is not present in the pocket or purse of the driver.

      Instead of having all these busybodies in these licensing offices around the world lets have them out in the world in uniform armed with radar guns, ticket pads, handcuffs, and firearms. If they see someone driving too fast, not obeying traffic signals and signs, or otherwise causing hazards on the road then they should put a stop to that. We don't need a license to enforce traffic laws. We need officers on the streets to enforce traffic laws.

      Why should I care if the person has obtained the prior permission of the government to drive if they demonstrate the ability to drive safely every day?

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    225. Re:new slogan by davester666 · · Score: 2

      You would think LA would be closer to the center...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    226. Re:new slogan by nbauman · · Score: 1

      This is the opposite of the way government agencies and corporations calculate lives vs. costs.

      Automobile companies routinely have to choose between building cars that will save lives but cost more. Construction companies have to routinely choose between using work safety procedures that will save lives but cost more. Coal companies have to routinely choose between pollution controls that save lives but cost more.

      The right-wing economists (in the Wall Street Journal editorial page, for example) say that everything has costs, and we can't spend too much to save a life, because that money could save other lives more cheaply elsewhere. They argue that people don't want to spend more money on safety, in the free marketplace. The government agencies used to calculate the value of a human life at about $1 million; now I've seen it up to $2 or $3 million. If a regulation saves a life at the cost of $3 million, they don't want to do it.

      You get all different numbers depending on how you calculate it. If you ask lumberjacks how much of a salary cut they would take in order to make their job safer, you'd get an inferred value of life at maybe $100,000. (That's the one corporations want to use.) When they compensated victims of the World Trade Center, they decided that a rich man's life was worth more than a poor man's life.

      If you think it out for a while, you'll see how this leads to inconsistent and ridiculous conclusions. My favorite question for conservatives was, "Suppose your mother was killed in an accident, you went to court, and you were compensated for her death. How much would you have to get in order to feel that you came out ahead?"

      Anyway, when it comes to government regulations that make people safer, and save thousands of lives, the conservative economists, corporations and Republicans say, "There has to be some limit to the amount you spend to save a life."

      When it comes to Homeland Security, the same Wall Street Journal editorial page says, "There's no limit to the amount you spend to save a life."

      I figure my chances of being killed on an airplane by a terrorist are about 1 in a billion. The security costs me about $50 more on a plane ticket and takes at least another hour to get through boarding. I can't take my pocket knife along. I'd rather skip this security.

    227. Re:new slogan by samwichse · · Score: 1

      And yet its falloff is still a function of the square of the distance.

    228. Re:new slogan by Bwian_of_Nazareth · · Score: 1

      Funny and wrong. The energy decreases with the square of distance, no matter how directional your antenna is.

    229. Re:new slogan by Grumbleduke · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, the 4th amendment to the US Constitution prohibits any sort of "unreasonable search" without "probable cause" (although, of course, that seems to have been rather watered down over the last 200 years).

      It doesn't really matter what the rules say, what matters is that you have a bunch of law enforcement officers, with considerable power over individuals, without the training or experience to know the limits of their powers, but with the arrogance to assume that they are always right. But hey, it's keeping us all safe from those evil terrorists the FBI and CIA keep training, right?

    230. Re:new slogan by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      I've been into and out of airports which required re-screening people who transferred because to get to the other gate or terminal you had to exit the secure area.

      Unless you've scheduled a 2-3 hour layover between every flight, you're shit out of luck. And if you do schedule 2-3 hour layovers at every transfer, you're going to spend almost as much time sitting in airports as you do in the air.

    231. Re:new slogan by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      I'm all for that, abolish the TSA as I'm pretty sure air travel is no safer today then 10 years ago.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    232. Re:new slogan by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      You can not reform a zealot.

      You should know this, you're a /. user.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    233. Re:new slogan by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Have you ever been clocked with police radar? Ka band radar is basically the same frequency as these L3 machines. The only difference is the mmw nudescanners are a lot less powerful.

      Citation needed. In fact, I would assume exactly the opposite is true: Imaging an object should require a much stronger reflection than simply using the Doppler effect to determine its velocity.

      For instance, a magnetic flowmeter uses a very low-strength magnetic field of about 25 gauss [PDF] to measure a fluid's velocity, but a MRI machine uses a field with a strength of 5,000 to 30,000 gauss in order to actually image something.

    234. Re:new slogan by Tamerlin · · Score: 1

      "No, it devalues all human life. It would be better to prevent that individual from killing others and then bring them to justice, hopefully leading to their eventual reform." I agree. The catch is that the TSA isn't doing anything that will help to prevent that one individual kill anyone else. One could argue that the TSA is accomplishing something to prevent terrorists from attacking US citizens, however. By trashing the civil rights of US citizens, the TSA is doing exactly what the terrorists want to do to us, so why would any terrorist want to do anything to get in the way? They'd be much better off just laughing out our gargantuan stupidity, and then blowing up a bridge or a shopping mall or sending someone infected with a particularly virulent virus that we're not ready for into JFK to stand in that security line for an hour infecting everyone around. In the end, under the pretense of protecting us from terrorists, the TSA is playing right into their hands, we as a nation are letting it happen.

    235. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the absence of evidence to the contrary, then, these machines must be deemed safe.~

      Scientific ignorance much? In absence of any testing, the machines must be deemed untested and therefore potentially unsafe. Why anyone would go through them is a mystery to me, given that it's the Government and they have a track record of saying whatever keeps the sheeple in line.

    236. Re:new slogan by Lemmeoutada+Collecti · · Score: 1

      Just give me a shirt treated with something that reacts to the radiation at different levels, similar to how flourescing materials react at different wavelengths, and tickets, and I'll gather your readings. You can stand in line outside the checkpoint and use your personal recording device (cell phone, camera, etc.) to film the reaction of the materials. All you have to do is pretend to be taking video of, say, your son about to take his first flight before you let him go through the checkpoint you can't, since you don't have a ticket. Oh, and since they won't let you, as his parent, accompany him to the gate, hope he doesn't get kidnapped or worse.

      Or use something that retains changes after exposure to radiation. Lots of easy ways to get measurements without asking permission from the TSA or violating their rules.

      --

      You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
    237. Re:new slogan by Prune · · Score: 1

      Vaccines still win in a cost-benefit analysis by a wide margin.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    238. Re:new slogan by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 1

      Not always. It varies by the vaccine.

    239. Re:new slogan by tolkienfan · · Score: 1

      Sir, your genius is showing.

    240. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're all potential terrorists to them.
      Kill a few to keep the rest scared of you.

    241. Re:new slogan by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      I'll have to zip up my pants... ;-)

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    242. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fly, but I've started avoiding transit through the the US. It's not the machines that bother me, it's the rudeness of the people who work in TSA and the border control desks. I'm not going to spend my hard earned money in a country that treats me like a terrorist or other type of criminal. I understand security is important, but politeness is also equally important. If I'm in the US it's because I've spent alot of money on the tickets, I expect to be treated with respect when in the airport.

    243. Re:new slogan by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 1

      I think it's funny that the GP quoted Star Trek, when Star Trek also states that a man should not sacrifices his personal morals for any reason. How many episodes showed Kirk or Spock (or Picard etc) finding miraculous ways to avoid the easy or immoral way out and still save everybody?

      The needs of the many do NOT outweigh the needs of the few, but the needs of the many are just as important as the needs of the few. You stated the proper way, but it's also the hardest way. It's worth the effort.

    244. Re:new slogan by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 1

      How many of the successful hijackings that you reference crashed into buildings? How many bullet trains have exploded? How many bridges have been bombed? How many terrorists have sunk ocean liners? How many times have they blown up Disney World? Or any of thousands of other places where infidels gather in great crowds?

      Even in the aggregate, deaths due to terrorism pale in comparison to just traffic accidents alone. Would taking into account the "success effect" quintuple these deaths? Even if so, it STILL wouldn't come close to heart disease. The point is not that the "honor system" would be perfect; the point is screening for terrorists has horribly diminishing returns and there are far more efficient places to put the resources.

      Besides, terrorists aren't after kill ratios; they're after fear. Every person that goes through a scanner proves they've won.

    245. Re:new slogan by Lucractius · · Score: 1

      Yep were getting them at all international airports here in Australia.
      Just so we can make Uncle Sam happy and keep feeding the treats to our lapdog politicians.

      The only sanity in the entire thing is that its not mandated for domestic travel.
      The moment they try that I'm taking a day off to politely ensure that my MPs in both houses know my opinion.
      Probably by standing in their office till they either drag me out or i get to talk to them. They arent far fortunately, I could do it in a lunch break but I want the extra time to guarantee i get to talk to them.

      --
      XML - A clever joke would be here if /. didn't mangle tag brackets.
    246. Re:new slogan by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      You are completely wrong. Medicine isn't like that at all. I should know, since I'm a doctor. The "algebra" part only applies to medical TV shows. Real life medicine is quite different. Yes there are algorithms, but first you have to recognize what you are dealing with and that is not in any book, it's in the tens of thousands of patients you have seen previously throughout medical school and the rest of your career.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    247. Re:new slogan by Meski · · Score: 1

      Kill them all, god will know his own... - Pope something, around the time of the inquisition. And now, we have an inquisition by another name.

    248. Re:new slogan by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      It isn't supposed to protect you from people who want to use it to kill you, it's supposed to protect you from accidents. Protecting you from people who want to kill you is a tad more tricky.
      Dunno how it is in the USA, but here in the Netherlands the first part of aquiring a drivers license is learning the traffic laws. As it is I have a lot of discussions about the traffic laws here, so I extrapolate that without a drivers license most people wouldn't know the rules and the streets would be a mess.
      By the way: a pool or a bathtub isn't as dangerous as a car.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    249. Re:new slogan by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      "It's never Lupus" is a quote from House. "Para-neoplastic Syndrome" is a classic wave-hands-in-the-air diagnosis in pretty much every episode.

      I am not a doctor, but I watch a comedian play one on TV.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    250. Re:new slogan by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      now that you put it that way , all we should do is sacrifice a virgin to a volcano every full moon.

      But which volcano, that's the question! Katla seems a good one to me, but it may not to you.

      Oh, and everyone knows that the sacrifices should be on new moons, not full moons.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    251. Re:new slogan by bluestrattos · · Score: 1

      I've said for a long time that if there's another 9-11 it'll be an inside job.

      Like the first one ?

    252. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Director of Homeland Security.

    253. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately the Americans are still getting out though so it's not very effective... ;-)

    254. Re:new slogan by nobodie · · Score: 1

      Grammar nazi alert!!!
      In your sig: "They that can give up..."
      "They" being a human actor calls the pronoun "who", not "that" which would be called by a non-human actor, as in " the tree that can give up all it's leaves"; vs. "the person who can give up (their) essential liberty..."

      Sorry to nazi this poor little sig, but it really undercuts the value of a quote to have such a blatant example of poor understanding of the language. If the language is not completely controlled, then the ideas may be, and usually are, equally flaccid.

      The thing that ticked me, was that I like and agree with the idea. But when presented so poorly it is cheapened.

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
    255. Re:new slogan by Dunbal · · Score: 1
      Yeah, that's a show my girlfriend loves and which I can't stand since it portrays medicine as a "brute force" exercise. A good physician usually has a strong diagnostic impression within 30 seconds that a patient starts speaking. All the other questions and labs are to confirm that diagnosis (except in the US, where they are to prevent predatory law suits). Sometimes you know what's wrong even before the patient has finished entering the room. More important than "book smarts" is "having seen it before". I know a great deal of highly intelligent and highly unsuccessful doctors who always pulled straight 'A's and could impress you with the most minute details about extremely rare diseases, and yet can't diagnose the common cold. You have to know how the human body expresses disease and you have to listen to the patient.

      As for doing it yourself on the internet, you will fall into the trap that many medical students fall into, and diagnose yourself with anything. Self diagnosis is not objective, it's subjective. That's why it's better to pay a stranger to do it for you. The "I've got that, and I've got that, too" syndrome is far too common.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    256. Re:new slogan by blindseer · · Score: 1

      It isn't supposed to protect you from people who want to use it to kill you, it's supposed to protect you from accidents.

      How does a piece of paper protect one from accidents? What keeps people safe is the desire to be safe. The people that wish to be safe will seek out the traffic laws, they are not difficult to find, and apply them. Those that don't care about being safe will ignore the training even if required by law. Those that don't care about being safe will still drive even if they don't have training, a license, or what ever piece of paper that a government requires.

      You know what keeps unsafe drivers off the road? What has been shown most effective in keeping unsafe drivers from causing accidents? Police officers on the road enforcing traffic law. We don't need licenses to enforce traffic law. All those people pushing papers around to manage licenses to drive are just a waste of my tax dollars. Again, get those people out of an office and out where they can do some good.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    257. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the TSA won't allow anyone to test the machines then they should be deemed "dangerous as hell", not safe. If it was as safe as they say then they could easily offer one machine up for research.

      And it's not like the whole "let the police search your cellphone if you got nothing to hide" as that still contains personal data that you might not want shared even if it's not illegal. These machines? There's nothing, if it were safe, preventing outside testing.

    258. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I sure as hell don't miss breathing other peoples poison."

      and yet you don't mind making me breathe the poisons you create by driving your automobile and flying in planes... *rolls eyes*

    259. Re:new slogan by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Well, all that they need is some of the radiation to make it back, the rest can pass through. Not enough made it back? Turn up the power! How do you think the x-ray body scanners work? However, in the case of radar guns I expect that the typical car body will shield the passengers pretty well. The windows maybe not so well.

    260. Re:new slogan by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Licenses ensure everyone at least knows the basics of safe driving. That's reason enough for the shitload of cost they bring.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    261. Re:new slogan by billd10 · · Score: 1

      Totally Stupid Ass..... Lets abolish this outfit before all our civil liberties are flushed down the toilet.

    262. Re:new slogan by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Sigh. Did you even read what I wrote?

      No one knows how many unlicensed drivers are on the roads because as long as they drive safely there is no cause to check if they are licensed. As shown by the large numbers of licensed drivers that drive unsafely the presence of the license is insufficient to assure safe driving.

      Without some sort of scientific study I find it real difficult to believe the licensing of drivers is what keeps us safe. Considering that the primary killer of children is motor vehicle accidents it seems to me that licensing of drivers is doing a very poor job of keeping us safe.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    263. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FROM THE ARTICLE:

      She says she was told to go through it anyway. "When someone in a position of authority tells you it is - you think that its right. So, I said, Are you sure I can go through with the pump? It's not going to hurt the pump? And she said no, no you're fine."

      Are people just too fucking lazy to even read before they open their big mouths?

      yes.

    264. Re:new slogan by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Killing an individual would be better for society than letting an individual kill bunches of individuals.

      It depends entirely on the individuals involved. This may be unpopular, but all (human) life is not equal. I'm a software engineer and my wife was an - excellent, awarded - English/Gifted teacher. She died in 2006 of a brain tumor and her death is a far, far greater loss to this world than mine will ever be.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    265. Re:new slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oooh ooooh! i got one I got one!!!
      the needs of the... gop... umm... insane, money.. something... dammit, all the words have been used by others already!

  2. The war on terror is over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The White House just said the war on terror is over.

    We don't need the TSA screeners any more, send them home and stop the unnecessary abuse of U.S. citizens.
     

    1. Re:The war on terror is over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're forgetting that whenever you give up a right you rarely (if ever) get that right back (re: government).

    2. Re:The war on terror is over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd actually vote for Obama if he did that.

    3. Re:The war on terror is over by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Informative

      The war on terror will never be over as long as the TSA is around. Radiation bombardment? Groping children? Sounds like Al-qaida has outsourced overseas.

    4. Re:The war on terror is over by arth1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We don't need the TSA screeners any more, send them home and stop the unnecessary abuse of U.S. citizens.

      Not only U.S. citizens - they abuse permanent residents and visitors too.

    5. Re:The war on terror is over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Al Quaeda outsourced all right, they just outsourced to the US government.
      Now its the US government wageing terror attacks on its citizens.
      Whe it comes to surrender, maybe we should update the motto with US instead of France ? ^_^
      Nobody surrenders to terrorism as fast as the US.

    6. Re:The war on terror is over by King_TJ · · Score: 2

      Hah, right! The war on terror is FAR from over. The White House plans to continue terrorizing its own citizenry with a false sense of fear and a need for government as their security blanket, for as long as it's politicaly useful!

    7. Re:The war on terror is over by ChrisMounce · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The war is over. We lost.

    8. Re:The war on terror is over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *sigh* Seriously, give it up already. I mean, you and your "I dream of a future where the TSA doesn't exist" nonsense. Not happening. Not with so many convenient threats to national security springing up shortly after the TSA is threatened in any way, shape, or form:

      http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/08/world/meast/yemen-qaeda-plot/

    9. Re:The war on terror is over by lightknight · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fair enough, fair enough. If getting back the old ones are so difficult, let's get some new ones, that are just like the old ones, but worded slightly different.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    10. Re:The war on terror is over by Dishevel · · Score: 2

      I would vote for him as well.
      He just needs to get rid of DHS with the TSA and the patriot act.
      Then he needs to decide that he can not enter into international agreements (ie CIPSA, ProIP, ACTA) without congressional approval.
      Then his vote is mine.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    11. Re:The war on terror is over by jythie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Less 'over' and more 'switched sides'... at least our government did.

    12. Re:The war on terror is over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If I start beating you with a lead pipe, then stop, will you vote for me?

    13. Re:The war on terror is over by aexiphixion · · Score: 0

      see Amendment 2

    14. Re:The war on terror is over by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 0

      People will not stop trying to blow up planes just becasue the TSA is abolished. Flip side to the same coin. Or would you prefer the invisible hand of the market groping your children instead? That is the only thing that would change by getting rid of the TSA at this point.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    15. Re:The war on terror is over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The White House just said the war on terror is over.

      Yeah, but they didn't say the eugenics war on "defectives", those that cost society and the public health care system more than they produce, ended.

      This is the kind of "screening" they'd truly like to perform, and if not stopped, eventually likely will.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBZsTf6oLfY

    16. Re:The war on terror is over by freeze128 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No....

      But if your predecessor started to beat me with a lead pipe, and then you stopped the beating, I would vote for you.

    17. Re:The war on terror is over by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Considering the Patriot Act was already drafted prior to 9/11, and that they went to far as to keep it secret and only allow lawmakers to read it under a declaration of secrecy shows that the Abuse of Citizens is the plan.

      The war on Drugs, Terror et al are just code names for the War on the Constitution.
      Constitutional Rights are an inconvenient obstruction to increased Power of the State and must be removed.

    18. Re:The war on terror is over by SnapaJones · · Score: 1

      I'd prefer neither, but if I had to make a choice, I'd prefer that it wasn't the government violating people's rights. That's certainly not the kind of thing I'd expect from a decent government.

    19. Re:The war on terror is over by Githaron · · Score: 2

      I think it is more likely that you are getting beaten by the predecessor and the current.

    20. Re:The war on terror is over by emag · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, someone can beat you for 8 minutes with a lead pipe, I step in and beat you for 3 then stop. You'd still vote for me?

      --
      "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
    21. Re:The war on terror is over by boxxertrumps · · Score: 1

      Corporations stand to lose business if they gain a reputation of being too invasive. The TSA, being a government agency does not directly rely on the people they infringe on for income. also, the TSA has managed to insert itself into every single commercial airport in the US.

      Competition is a good thing, especially in this case.

    22. Re:The war on terror is over by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Frankly I'd rather just take the risk, just as I take a risk every time I board a train or boat or car that it will be my last trip. The odds that my particular plane will blowup in a terrorist attack are lower than my odds of getting hit by a meteorite, or getting swept away in a tsunami. It is silly to fear extremely-unlikely events, and subject yourself to cancer (they are Xray remembers) or sexual assault (touching a breast or crotch). And then turn-round and stuff your face with fat/sugar which WILL kill you.

      The odds are especially low considering how hard it is to sneak a bomb past the Xray and metal detectors. The 9/11 terrorists didn't succeed... all they got on board was a tiny knife, and that would have been useless if we had simply locked the pilot doors (like we do now). They would have failed.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    23. Re:The war on terror is over by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Does it really make a difference whether the unwanted hand on your nuts belongs to a government official, or an employee of a private company at that point? I'd also prefer neither becasue either to me seems equally silly and unneccessary. I would rather waste my time arguing the hand shouldn't be on my nuts in the first place than argue about who's hand I would rather it was. If Israeli airports rejected the idea of body scanning and evasive searches as ineffective, why hasn't the US done the same?

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    24. Re:The war on terror is over by metrometro · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wait, are we talking about cell phone contracts again?

    25. Re:The war on terror is over by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      The war on terror may be over, but the war on the constitution will never end.

    26. Re:The war on terror is over by antdude · · Score: 1

      Why is this marked funny? I find this the truth.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    27. Re:The war on terror is over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're forgetting that whenever you give up a right you rarely (if ever) get that right back (re: government).

      Worse. The TSA is unionized now. Have you ever known a union to give up jobs without a fight? Or an entire workforce?

    28. Re:The war on terror is over by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Funny

      So, someone can beat you for 8 minutes with a lead pipe, I step in and beat you for 3 then stop. You'd still vote for me?

      tempting. Maybe if you told me that it was to prevent terrorism and protect the children.

    29. Re:The war on terror is over by reve_etrange · · Score: 2

      That good security requires groping children is a fallacy. Fly El Al and find out.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    30. Re:The war on terror is over by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      The White House just said the war on terror is over.

      Lemme guess. We lost, right?

      If the 'War on Terror' is over, and the 'threat level' is now green for the first time, where are all those terrorrorrorrist attacks the Old Regime promised us would happen the instant we dropped our guard? Hint: Underwear bombs with just enough force to blow somebody's nuts off don't count.

      Seriously. What was that guy smoking? And why isn't he sharing?

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    31. Re:The war on terror is over by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Yes just as there's a difference between government owning and forcing me to buy Cable TV, versus the present situation where I can buy comcast or verizon or dish or directTV or antennaTV or Hulu or amazon or.....

      Private security gives customers a choice if they want to fly on the Airline that gropes them everywhere, or the one that just uses a metal detector (pre9/11 style). The pro-choice solution is preferable to a single-choice monopoly solution.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    32. Re:The war on terror is over by emag · · Score: 0

      It's to preserve our freedom and safety, prevent terrorism, protect our children, and ensure the American Way.

      --
      "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
    33. Re:The war on terror is over by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      I agree. Read my post a few down from the one you replied to. All I said was doing away with the TSA would have private agencies doing the exact same procedures - until airports change their entire approach to security. Looking for "bad" objects is a stupid way to run security screening.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    34. Re:The war on terror is over by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I would say we don't need this level of screening any more.
      Right your Representatives and ask them to bring TSA screening back to pre 2001 levels.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    35. Re:The war on terror is over by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I have often wondered what the government's reaction to a suitcase bomb being detonated in a security line, preferably right in front of a TSA screener.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    36. Re:The war on terror is over by SnapaJones · · Score: 1

      In addition to the other guy's points, there's also the fact that the government isn't supposed to violate your rights. The government is supposed to uphold the people's rights, not violate them. A government that violates them can no longer be considered a government for the people, and that is a dangerous situation.

      I would rather waste my time arguing the hand shouldn't be on my nuts in the first place than argue about who's hand I would rather it was.

      So would I. In fact, I even said I'd prefer neither. They're simply wasting their time with this nonsense.

    37. Re:The war on terror is over by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Because there's lots of money to be made.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    38. Re:The war on terror is over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but the GP is correct here...we need to get rid of the mandate for a hand on our nuts entirely. I personally don't give a fuck WHO it is with a hand on my balls....if it isn't my wife, it isn't "right", period, end of fucking discussion.

      So long as the Government is involved, the hand on the balls will be mandated, regardless if it is the TSA or The Security Theatre Company of Omaha, Nebraska. The problem here is less the TSA and more the regulations that the TSA follow/make up on the spot.

    39. Re:The war on terror is over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are forgetting that it wasn't that long ago we had a net increase in rights.

    40. Re:The war on terror is over by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      "NO BAGGAGE ON FLIGHTS! Buy your new clothes and toiletries at the nearest Walmart when you arrive!"

      Or even better "Flight outlawed!"

    41. Re:The war on terror is over by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Looking for "bad" objects is a stupid way to run security screening.

      But it's the only practical method when one of your main goals is not anti-terrorism security, but job security for minimally-educated & trained Union workers.

      This is more about building-out an entirely separate national security force to monitor all transportation hubs and check papers and conduct searches of people and anything they may have with them.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwaAVJITx1Y

      Papiere, bitte.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    42. Re:The war on terror is over by TheEyes · · Score: 1

      Forty, even.

    43. Re:The war on terror is over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a quote from Battlestar Galactica.

      The response line is "It hasn't begun yet"

    44. Re:The war on terror is over by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      People will not stop trying to blow up planes just becasue the TSA is abolished.

      Right, that's why the terrorirst are constantly blowing up American subways, ferries and stadiums. Wait...

    45. Re:The war on terror is over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/04/24/1942212/should-the-fda-assess-medical-device-defenses-against-hackers

      It's a shame these new proposed medical device hacking laws are just barely getting started on.
      I would love to see an attempted murder charge stick against the TSA.

      As it stands, a TSA officer on duty is exempt from civilian law, and would not even be tried if they shot you dead in cold blood.

      The latest generational batch of murderers actually try for jobs with law enforcement and aim for the FBI, as it has been held in court that an FBI agent murdering a civilian in cold blood is legal, with no recourse available to the officer or agency.
      This legal "loophole" has been taken advantage of daily by local law enforcement, and only slightly less frequently in federal enforcement.
      Ironically it's the local law enforcement that is pathetically easy to get a job within, and not a single day goes by where a cop does not murder someone in cold blood outside of the line of duty. Rarely do they get any punishment, and the number that got close to a civilians punishment (prison time) can be counted on both hands.

      The TSA agents must die, by our government enforcing our existing laws upon them (capital punishment for the murders, and life imprisonment for the torture and rape)

    46. Re:The war on terror is over by TheEyes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Blowing up a plane was never the problem with 9/11; it was the fact that the terrorists got access to the cockpit and turned the planes into flying bombs that were then used to blow up two massive office buildings. That can't happen anymore, now that pilots close the door to the cockpit and the average passenger knows to swarm any idiot who tries to hijack a plane; all this other stuff is just theater perpetuated by security theater companies to keep getting money from easily frightened people.

    47. Re:The war on terror is over by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      People will not stop trying to blow up planes just becasue the TSA is abolished.

      They already have stopped, but it's not because of the TSA. It's because of this magic stone that I have. If anything happens to my stone we are all toast, but as long as I have it there will be no more terrorist attacks. Not ever. Do you feel better now? More secure? Safer?

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    48. Re:The war on terror is over by sjames · · Score: 2

      How about adding that it can only be taken away if a 3/4 majority of congress votes for it by jamming a red hot poker in their eye?

    49. Re:The war on terror is over by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Um, I thought "they" were the ones that "we" outsourced to? Did you get confused along the way...?

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    50. Re:The war on terror is over by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 2

      I know all of this, you are preaching to the choir here. Blowing up planes is not a terrorists goal - their goal is causing terror however they can. Looking at airport security now, I say they won this fight long ago. They can't easily hijack planes anymore, they will move on to something else. This is why rigid bureaucratic security approaches will always be dismally behind the people trying to circumvent them.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    51. Re:The war on terror is over by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 2

      Yes, immensely. How quickly can you manufacture backups in case anything happens to yours??

      In answer to your question, no I feel no safer under ineffective airport security theater. Until airports rethink their entire approach to security, they are fighting a losing battle. They need to throw out everything they think they know and start over.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    52. Re:The war on terror is over by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      To a certain extent I would say that you are right in that it really doesn't matter whose being invasive. However, there is another aspect that is missed in this. That being that we should be able to trust our government to represent "our" interests as we should be able to place a measure of trust in them not afforded to business.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    53. Re:The war on terror is over by am+2k · · Score: 1

      But if your predecessor started to beat me with a lead pipe, and then you stopped the beating, I would vote for you.

      The problem is, since all of the applicants have financial incentive to not stop beating you, they won't stop, since you can't vote against them.

    54. Re:The war on terror is over by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      Yes, I hear the rights ration went up to 5 last week. The previous level was only 4 rights.

    55. Re:The war on terror is over by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 2

      Yes, and as a secret Moslem Obama really wants to make all of your wives and daughters his wives under Allah so that he can implant within each of them the seed of the Dark Lord Allah to commit the true Jihad of oppression over the white devils, right?

    56. Re:The war on terror is over by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      People will not stop trying to blow up planes just becasue the TSA is abolished.

      People will not stop trying to blow up planes just because the TSA is created. So we agree that the TSA has no effect on Terrorism. So can we just abolish the TSA yet?

    57. Re:The war on terror is over by cyberfunkr · · Score: 1

      So, someone can beat you for 8 minutes with a lead pipe, I step in and beat you for 3 then stop. You'd still vote for me?

      tempting. Maybe if you told me that it was to prevent terrorism and protect the children.

      Okay, so my final offer is to have someone beat you with an iron pipe, I step in and claim hero, then proceed to beat you with a rubber hose. But only in those places that weren't crushed by the iron pipe and at a slower pace. So while you're thankful for allowing the old wounds to heal, I can still beat you in new and less provable ways.

    58. Re:The war on terror is over by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the non-citizens deserve it.

    59. Re:The war on terror is over by element-o.p. · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can we please stop this left-vs-right crap? Yes, TSA came into existence under GWB. However, if this was strictly a Republican issue, why has TSA gotten even worse since we elected Mr. Hope-and-Change almost four years ago?

      Anyone still blaming "those evil (Republicans|Democrats)" has clearly NOT been paying attention.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    60. Re:The war on terror is over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't beat 'em.. join 'em

    61. Re:The war on terror is over by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      I see your link and raise you one of my own. No, really -- it's a link of my own; please forgive the shameless plug to my blog, but the full argument is a little too lengthy to repeat here. I will summarize it, however, by saying that the Yemeni bomb plot was not stopped by nudie-scoping or groping anyone -- it was foiled by good, old-fashioned police work. In fact, I rather suspect that in the unlikely event that a terrorist were somehow to be detected by TSA, the terrorist would not merely surrender his weapon(s) the way honest citizens who inadvertently left a prohibited item in their luggage do, but would instead attack the people milling around at the security checkpoint.

      All TSA has accomplished is to move the danger point from the airliner to the airport. That, IMHO, is certainly not worth the...what? $2 billion?...that we've spent on airport (in)security.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    62. Re:The war on terror is over by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Careful, Comrade, they're on to you!!!

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    63. Re:The war on terror is over by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I know all of this, you are preaching to the choir here. Blowing up planes is not a terrorists goal - their goal is causing terror however they can.

      Not entirely. Their goals extend beyond the terror and into what they hope the terror will enact, whether it's Green Living (ELF), Spread of Islam or Death to America (terrorists du jour), or Printing Anti-Science Wackoism (unibomber). I doubt Al Qaeda saw the draconian TSA in the airports and said "Our mission is complete! The final goal of making Americans get felt up on a regular basis is a success!"

    64. Re:The war on terror is over by Nyder · · Score: 1

      The White House just said the war on terror is over.

      We don't need the TSA screeners any more, send them home and stop the unnecessary abuse of U.S. citizens.

      Ya, the War on Terrorism is over, but the War on Freedom is still going.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    65. Re:The war on terror is over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the FEMA camps are active.

    66. Re:The war on terror is over by Immerman · · Score: 1

      And why would they give you new ones? Kind of defeats the point of taking away the old ones in the first place doesn't it? Terrorism was the opportunity to take away rights, not the reason for it.

      Besides - you already have far more rights than enumerated in the Constitution (unless you live in a state that revokes them). From the Bill of Rights.
      9th Amendment – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
      10 Amendment – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      If anyone can point to anything in the constitution which grants the federal government the right to do half the stuff it's done in the last century, I'd love to see it.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    67. Re:The war on terror is over by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Depends, were you using the lead pipe as well, or did you switch to a baseball bat? And has your opponent already pledged to use a morning star?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    68. Re:The war on terror is over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Find 7 Republicans to vote for rights that are perceived to get in the way of the "War on Terror," and we'll talk.
      Sorry 7 + however many "Democrats" cave on the issue.

    69. Re:The war on terror is over by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't mind that.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    70. Re:The war on terror is over by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      You are correct that the Patriot Act was drafted before 9/11, but you are incorrect that it lawmakers were only allowed to "read it under a declaration of secrecy". The Clinton Administration tried to get the provisions of the Patriot Act passed, but public opposition to the law killed it.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    71. Re:The war on terror is over by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of the old ones were never "worded" in the first place. They were just assumed to be so obviously inalienable that no one would think to infringe them. An attempt was made to point this out in the 9th and 10th amendments to the constitution, but apparently a single sentence about interstate commerce in Article 1, Section 8 supersedes any more recent revisions, for some reason.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    72. Re:The war on terror is over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The war on terror is even more necessary now that diabetics are afraid to flight. The TSA must show them that it's safe, that there are no bombs hidden in their insulin pump. It has the unfortunate side-effect of rendering the pump useless - but it's a war, and in a war some people have to make sacrifices to help others fill their pockets with everyone's money.

    73. Re:The war on terror is over by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Indeed. That clause, and its "interpretation," is like the f*cking philosopher stone of laws; instead of making unlimited gold, it allows brainless prats to pass whatever rules they want, no matter how destructive, into existence.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    74. Re:The war on terror is over by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Private security gives customers a choice if they want to fly on the Airline that gropes them everywhere, or the one that just uses a metal detector (pre9/11 style). The pro-choice solution is preferable to a single-choice monopoly solution.

      Can you do that actually? Do different airlines in the US really have different security checkpoints (rather than only different ticket and check-in counters...)?

    75. Re:The war on terror is over by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 1

      I don't know. Is your opponent promising to increase the size of the pipe?

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    76. Re:The war on terror is over by Binestar · · Score: 1

      Then his vote is mine.

      Really? If he does all that you'll run for President and have him vote for you?

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
    77. Re:The war on terror is over by Bigby · · Score: 1

      A much more dangerous idea is a rogue pilot.

    78. Re:The war on terror is over by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      You caught that? :)

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    79. Re:The war on terror is over by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 1

      If I only had the choice between the 8 minute assault or the 3 minute assault, then sure I'd choose the 3 minute assault. I'd even donate to that assaulter's campaign. He's definitely better than the 8 minute assaulter.

      Of course that's assuming that I wouldn't do better by starting a revolution. I might overthrow you both by suffering a 10 minute beating once and then never again. But if the cost of revolution is too high -- a 20 minute beating, say -- I might decide that getting it for 3 minutes every four years is the better way to go.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    80. Re:The war on terror is over by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      No, they saw that what they did had a pretty radical effect on our day to day lives following 9/11, and I am sure considered it at the very least a small victory. All terrorists want is a reaction so that their "cause" is known publicly. Think anybody in the USA doesn't know who Al-Queada is now? How many of those same people knew anything about Al-Queda the on 9/10/2001?

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    81. Re:The war on terror is over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Right"? I see you went to a public school.

    82. Re:The war on terror is over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having to pass through customs is the absolute #1 reason I don't want to bother visiting the USA. Absolutely no point in shopping there... our dollar's been better than the US's for a while now (although damn near equal), so anything can be bought online.

      Single only reasons for going to the USA would be to visit relatives or people you know and want to visit... I have none of those in the USA... and for the scenery, at which point if I was to spend money on a big sightseeing vacation, I'd visit either other places in Canada, or other countries across the ocean. Very little point in doing that in the USA when amazing sights are all over the world.

      So basically, the retardery of Customs has single-handedly destroyed my urge to casually visit the States.

    83. Re:The war on terror is over by emag · · Score: 1

      Oh, from me you're guaranteed at least 1 more minute, possibly 5 more, of being beaten. I'm just asking you 3 minutes in if you're gonna vote for me and add another 5...

      --
      "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
    84. Re:The war on terror is over by emag · · Score: 1

      The pipe has been, on average, steadily increasing for at least the last hour, including all 11 minutes you're being beaten. And it's not slowing down whomever is doing the beating...

      --
      "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
    85. Re:The war on terror is over by Binestar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, my UID is low enough that I read things before posting. It's a hassle really...

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
    86. Re:The war on terror is over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to forget that before 9/11 there was an attempt to blow up several US passenger planes over US cities. Thankfully that attempt was thwarted.

    87. Re:The war on terror is over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why I no longer transit through the states. I've never hurt anyone and have no intention of ever hurting anyone. But every time I transit through the US I get treated like criminal. I'd rather spend my money in countries that treat me with a little more respect.

    88. Re:The war on terror is over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because politicians are risk-averse, and they don't bear the cost. if they sponsor a bill to dismantle the tsa, and then there is an incident, they're toast - too much risk. if they say nothing, they get included with everyone else in washington in being grumbled at - much less risk. the waste of money comes nowhere near to being in the question

  3. forced? by X0563511 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wait a minute... I think the larger issue here is that they forced her through the scanner.

    Maybe I'm wrong, but is that not improper? I thought they had to allow manual inspection at your request.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    1. Re:forced? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      She is a teenager. I bet they bullied her into "voluntarily" going through the scanner.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:forced? by santax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course they force her... she is 16 and looking good!

    3. Re:forced? by SeNtM · · Score: 1

      No, that is just what the tell people to make it seem like they have a choice. The Gestapo...errr...TSA basically has the right to violate any civil liberty you think you may have.

      --
      "There ought to be limits to freedom." -George W. Bush
    4. Re:forced? by samazon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you read the article, I'm not sure "forced" is the right word. What I gathered from, "When someone in a position of authority tells you it is - you think that its right. So, I said, Are you sure I can go through with the pump? It's not going to hurt the pump? And she said no, no you're fine." (direct quote from article) is that this was a case of a TSA employee being an idiot, not a TSA employee getting handsy. Not that it's right (it's not) but she allowed them to put her through the body scanner because she didn't want to argue with the security personnel about whether it would damage her machine. I can see why she wouldn't want to argue, but STILL. Forced makes it sound a little uglier than it is.

      --
      I have the hiccups.
    5. Re:forced? by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      +1. Several women have been forced to walk through the scanner multiple times, in order for the men to get a better view of their nudity on the screen.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    6. Re:forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      A better word than forced would be 'coerced.' You NEVER have to get in their unsafe scanners. You can ALWAYS opt out.

    7. Re:forced? by Altus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Anything to get a mm wave look at some underage breasts.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    8. Re:forced? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Aah, I see.

      In my case I always do opt out. I've been asked why a few times - and in every case I've said (and this is partial truth) "I work around radio a lot, so I try to keep any of my exposures to a minimum". The "lie" is that I operate occasionally.

      Every single time I've said this, it's been accepted with no fuss.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    9. Re:forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This would explain why my girlfriend always gets forced through the scanner and I don't even though we both opt out. I always assumed it was because the TSA agents couldn't see her too.

    10. Re:forced? by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why lie?

      "I want to opt out."
      "Why?"
      "Because."
      "Why?"
      "......"
      "Why?"
      "......"

      You have the right to remain silent and are not required to give ANY answers to a government employee except your name and ID (varies from state-to-state).

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    11. Re:forced? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ummm, go to any beach in Europe and knock yourself out.

      We Americans are diseased in the head in many ways.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    12. Re:forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone tell her to call Rand Paul asap -- isn't he the one calling for getting rid of TSA completely?

    13. Re:forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And they have the power to detain you until you miss your flight.

    14. Re:forced? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Because I don't feel the need to withhold information, and because saying "a lot" instead of "occasionally" makes me feel more important. It's not a lie, really, it's an exaggeration (that operates on a part that doesn't really matter, the real answer is "because I want to limit my exposure" and the rest is just context that, while is not necessary, I feel is rude to not supply. Hate them all you want, they are people and deserve a measure of courtesy)

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

      Anything to get a mm wave look at some underage breasts.

      Sadly, this may have some truth to it - she looks like a cute enough high school girl in the online picture in the article. TSA and Pedobear, BFF

      --
      Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
    16. Re:forced? by X0563511 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which is why you should give them the same courtesy you should be giving any other person, even if you hate them.

      It's amazing what a little courtesy can do. If money makes the world go 'round, then courtesy is the grease on the axle.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    17. Re:forced? by noc007 · · Score: 2

      Last time I flew, they were putting all of the chubby women through. If you were a guy or skinny, you didn't go through. Bunch of bastards. Still, I had to completely empty my pockets including my ID and boarding pass; usually those are the two things I leave in my pockets. I don't know how that was a threat to national security.

      IMHO, the terrorists won long ago. PATRIOT Act, Homeland Security, TSA, etc. have stripped away our freedoms. On 9/11/2001 people were use to the idea that terrorists would hijack a plane, make a ransom, and they'd be on their way. No one thought that they would be used as a missile into a building. These days people are aware and are willing to crack some skulls the next time someone tried it.

    18. Re:forced? by samazon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is what I found - http://saizai.com/tsa_rights.pdf - it's a "cheat sheet" of what is legally permissible. Though I haven't been in a situation with TSA like that, I have had (on two separate occasions) doctors "spring" invasive medical exams on me during follow-up visits (a biopsy for a first-time abnormal test result, when standard procedure is three abnormal results... someone wants to charge my insurance company exorbitant lab fees...) and while I have the cojones to tell my doctor he can shove it because I -know- he's doing something wrong, most teenage girls don't (I WAS a teenage girl going through TSA and it IS intimidating). It's tragic, and her little crusade for education is fine, but it doesn't scrape the real issue - which is, of course, daily violations of people's privacy. As Ben said... "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

      --
      I have the hiccups.
    19. Re:forced? by grqb · · Score: 1

      TFA didn't suggest that she was forced.It said she took the advice of the TSA worker over the advice of her doctor. The doctor's note said to avoid the body scanner, she asked the TSA worker if it was ok, and the TSA worker said yes. IMHO, a doctor has more credibility over a TSA worker in this case, I'm not sure why she didn't think so.

    20. Re:forced? by gorzek · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Unless I am totally mistaken, the people who view the scanner images aren't even within sight of the screening area, precisely for this reason (so people can't be forced through the scanner to satisfy the prurient interests of creeps.) Granted, there are probably ways around it, but this sounds more like rank stupidity than unchecked ephebophilia.

    21. Re:forced? by Svartormr · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ummm, go to any beach in Europe and knock yourself out.

      Very true. But unless you're willing to be groped, irradiated, swim *really* well, or have a lot of bucks for a ship ticket, it's kind of difficult to get to Europe.

    22. Re:forced? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      TFS said forced. 20 people have told me this, I don't need more to do so. Thanks, though.

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

      The screener probably just liked fat women. Fat people can hide things in their fat folds that these scanners can't see anyways.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    24. Re:forced? by BitterOak · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Ummm, go to any beach in Europe and knock yourself out.

      We Americans are diseased in the head in many ways.

      Ummm, the differences the people on those beaches are there by choice, and if they are topless, they are topless by choice. That's why the beaches are called clothing optional.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    25. Re:forced? by J0nne · · Score: 1

      I've opted out every time, and they never force you to do it or even ask you why. Just be polite about it and don't be a dick.

    26. Re:forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You do understand that these procedures are not limited to airports anymore?? Whole vehicle x-rays and these scanners are being deployed to regular border crossings and ship docks.

      In a decade, you will not be able to go to a movie theater or a game without getting xrayed and/or microwaved.

    27. Re:forced? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No they don't and they have been shut down plenty of times. Sadly it takes a force of personality to get through the initial bit. And that's wrong, and it should be changed. But lets not get stupid.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    28. Re:forced? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      because they don't have the internet?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    29. Re:forced? by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      Option 2: Use Google and search for "Boobies"? I hear that Internet thing has a lot of that going on...

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    30. Re:forced? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Drive to Mexico or Canada - and be a lot freer in your travel. It's almost worth it at this point.

      Last I checked - you can still refuse the scanner. The day they attempt to force me through one will be the first day I miss a flight voluntarily, because nothing says I cannot walk right back out the front door.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    31. Re:forced? by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      GOOD.
      It will make a good story to share with millions of Ron Paul fans, and maybe some radio shows like Peter Schiff, and so on. Fame is fun. :-) I might even have grounds for a lawsuit, after all, they are supposed to pat you down when you opt-out of scanning, not detain you. They violated the law.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    32. Re:forced? by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      I forgot to mention in my previous post. It's not illegal to remain silent, but it is illegal to lie to cops or FBI/CIA agents. I suspect the same is true for these TSA agents.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    33. Re:forced? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

      Unless I am totally mistaken, the people who view the scanner images aren't even within sight of the screening area, precisely for this reason (so people can't be forced through the scanner to satisfy the prurient interests of creeps.)

      Indeed. However the easiest way around it is for people in the booth to have friends that pick who to scan, rescan and rescan again.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    34. Re:forced? by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 2

      because nothing says I cannot walk right back out the front door.

      Wrong. They've arrested people for trying to leave. It would make penetration testing much easier, e.g. pack a gun and only turn back only if it looks like the TSA is actually paying attention. They realize how incredibly weak their "screening" procedures are and that anything and everything would walk through the checkpoints if you could probe their "security" at will.

    35. Re:forced? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Which is why you should give them the same courtesy you should be giving any other person, even if you hate them.

      It's amazing what a little courtesy can do. If money makes the world go 'round, then courtesy is the grease on the axle.

      That's bullshit. Sure, it is the way of the world, but it is absolutely an abuse of authority whenever it happens and should never be condoned. This isn't about "hating" someone, it is about people in a position of power and responsibility making a decision on how to use that power in a irresponsible way -- As if a terrorist could never be courteous and polite.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    36. Re:forced? by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      You should also always be engaging in tit-for-tat or you'll be completely raped by everyone you have to deal with.

      "You want to touch my balls or shove me in a waveguide? This will not be pleasant for you, either."

    37. Re:forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seeing as how one would fly to Europe, they do consent to being irradiated. You know, there's more cosmic radiation at higher altitudes (ie cruise level) and all.

    38. Re:forced? by bware · · Score: 2

      I've been harassed for opting out of the scanners several times, just for an anecdote in the other direction.

      They generally make a big deal out of it, making me wait for minutes while they go find someone to do the pat down, big sighs while he puts on the rubber gloves, rough handling of my carry-ons (since I can't touch them), arguments about the safety of the scanners ("That sign over there sez they're safe, cain't you read?!"), and for extra punishment and delay, wipe-testing the carry-ons for explosives. Like if I were carrying explosives, I'd want to attract extra attention by asking to opt-out.

    39. Re:forced? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      What's your point? I wasn't defending any tyrants. All I said is being nice tends to make even the tyrants behave somewhat more civilly towards you.

      Being an asshole never helps. Just draws ire and attention to yourself for no damn reason. You have a problem with the TSA? Don't be an asshole to the people on the ground level, because: 1: that isn't going to change shit, and 2: that's only going to make things worse for you (because being an asshole is stupid)

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

      I'm pretty sure it's not illegal to lie in a casual conversation. Wrong, perhaps - that's a matter of morality, but not illegal.

      Besides, is saying "I work around radio a lot, so I want to keep my exposures to a minimum" really that different than "I work around radio some, so I want to keep my exposures to a minimum" in any functional manner? The reason is the same ("I want to keep my exposures to a minimum") and you've only changed the context ("I work around radio MAGNITUDE") which is totally subjective anyway.

      Now, if they were asking me what something they found on me was for, and I lied - that would be different.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    41. Re:forced? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      You didn't qualify "should" and I'm still not sure if your explanation really jibes with my point. Lots of people thought Rosa Parks was an asshole too.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    42. Re:forced? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I love your world view; it must be a nice and scary place in there. Not everyone is a jaded antisocial.

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

      Just because she was right doesn't mean she wasn't an asshole about the way she handled it. I'm speaking in generalities anyway. Of course "be nice" is not always appropriate. However, it usually is.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    44. Re:forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > We Americans are diseased in the head in many ways.

      Some ways because of exposure to radiation!

    45. Re:forced? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I've been harassed for opting out of the scanners several times, just for an anecdote in the other direction.

      They generally make a big deal out of it, making me wait for minutes while they go find someone to do the pat down, big sighs while he puts on the rubber gloves, rough handling of my carry-ons (since I can't touch them), arguments about the safety of the scanners ("That sign over there sez they're safe, cain't you read?!"), and for extra punishment and delay, wipe-testing the carry-ons for explosives. Like if I were carrying explosives, I'd want to attract extra attention by asking to opt-out.

      The wipe testing is standard. Not sure if you notice it, their gloves go in the same machine after the pat down. They do this with me even when otherwise being super professional and "lets get this shit done".

      The rough treatment doesn't sound any different from normal either - look around some more. If they have to handle a bag, they are not happy about it in general.

      Now, the guy pointing out the safety of the scanners? Well, he doesn't know any better. He believes the authority and thinks down on you for thinking otherwise. Perhaps he thinks you are paranoid, or are a know-it-all? I think that's just the kind of people you get into those jobs, and not a policy thing. (that question by the way is usually the one I answer with the "minimizing my radio exposure because I work around it a lot" answer, which in every single case I've used it (about 5) has been accepted immediately and with no stares or eye-rolling)

      Could also just be the airports I tend to frequent. I'm usually in ATL, TPA, or LAX, and if not it's usually some rinky dink one like GRK.

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

      The screener is just a person doing a job. They aren't a tyrant, they aren't a terrorist, and being rude to them personally serves no purpose except to satisfy your urge to be rude.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    47. Re:forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the TSA agent was likely being lazy, didn't bother to read the letter, and was like, "just go through, just go through. Shut up, I want my break." TSA agents need to pay more attention to these exceptions and understand the story.

      But the girl had a letter from her doctor explaining that the pump should not be exposed to the body scanner radiation. She knew it shouldn't be exposed. She asked "what should I do," instead of saying, "I require a patdown, because my doctor says my pump *cannot* be exposed to this radiation, and if it is, it could malfunction and kill me."

      It's not her fault, but she should have been taught (by doctors, parents, anybody with half a care for her) that the proper procedure is to tell them what you need, not ask them "what should I do?" If my doctor tells me, "Do X or you'll die," and a TSA screener says, "Go ahead, do X, I'm sure you'll be fine," I'm gonna trust my doctor's word more than the TSA screener. They can't force you through the scanner, and if you remain patient and tell them, "I can't go through that, here's why, I need a patdown search instead," it very likely would've been a non-issue.

    48. Re:forced? by LVSlushdat · · Score: 0

      yup.. Just like the IRS bullies the American sheeple into paying a tax that 1) BY THEIR OWN admission, is VOLUNTARY, and 2) NO LAW makes an American citizen liable for that "tax". IRS and its "parents", the Treasury Dept and In-Justice Dept use smoke and mirrors to make USC Title 27 (Alcohol Taxes) *appear* to apply to USC Title 26 (The "Income Tax" code, all umpteen thousand pages of it...).. Just another 3-letter agency that has NO business in a country that follows the Constitution, but would have been right at home in the old USSR.. And yes, I AM a "tax protester"... Learn the Truth and perhaps, if cognitive dissonance hasn't screwed your brain up too bad, you may understand the Truth..

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    49. Re:forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably ways around it? It's trivial.

      "Make sure you send me some good ones, Bob."
      "Yeah, don't worry. I'll line em up for ya. See you after the shift."

    50. Re:forced? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      "Hotties in the scanner and the drinks are on me!"

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    51. Re:forced? by shentino · · Score: 1

      I'd prefer "deceived"

      They pretty much told her that paper she had from the doctor was written by a moron.

    52. Re:forced? by tftp · · Score: 1

      "I want to opt out."
      "Why?"

      "Because I prefer a human touch."

      The screener will be unsure who is violating who.

    53. Re:forced? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      IMHO, the terrorists won long ago. PATRIOT Act, Homeland Security, TSA, etc. have stripped away our freedoms.

      "Won" what? That wasn't their goal. They wanted us out of the Middle East, the destruction of Israel, and they wanted a return to the days of Islamic caliphate glory.

      Instead they have the US as involved or more involved in the Middle East, chaos in a main anti-Israeli power, an apparent move toward democracy in the region, and near-irrelevance in almost the entire region they wanted to themselves.

      Really, they could give two shits about how many searches we subject ourselves to.

      It is probably fair to say that we over-reacted and gave up too much for a sense of security - but to say that they "won" is silly unless you think that less convenient air travel was their goal.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    54. Re:forced? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      She didn't think so because if she followed the doctor's advice she would need to be groped.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    55. Re:forced? by tftp · · Score: 1

      As Ben said... "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

      And that would be fine and dandy as long as only the actors would be experiencing the consequences.

      But in this case 80% of population have given up essential liberty for 100% of the population. People who never signed up for this foolishness have to suffer along. This is especially said because those 80% are least qualified to express any opinion whatsoever on the subject. What did Romans say, "Divide and Rule" ?

    56. Re:forced? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      No, almost nobody thing Rosa Parks was an asshole. She was a black lady sitting in the Black section of the bus asked to give up her seat for a white man who declined politely. The people who don't know the story (i.e. think she was sitting in the whites section or such) often think others should think her an asshole. But I've not run across anyone who knew the story who thought she was an asshole, though I'm not old enough to have been around when it actually happened. I'm sure plenty thought her an asshole because her actions (or lack thereof) caused an incident, even if her actions in isolation were not asshole-ish.

    57. Re:forced? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      If more people were jaded and antisocial, we'd have to put up with far fewer abuses of our rights. Sycophants like you are a huge part of what's wrong with this country.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    58. Re:forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed... and then they can swap jobs on the next shift.

    59. Re:forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the fact that she's 16 raises issues about consent and authority. Legally, she can't be expected to have the same ability to consent. So even if the TSA didn't actually force her to go through is irrelevant--they encouraged her to go through when they should have known better.

      Think about statutory rape: the fact that a rapist says "but they agreed to it!" is irrelevant.

      Same thing here.

      If I were her parents, I would be seriously thinking of filing a lawsuit for endangerment of a minor.

    60. Re:forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you refuse to go through the scanner when they tell you to you get arrested, period. The end result is generally a minimum of 10k fine, probably night in jail and certainly your entire day will be wasted.

      I'm not sure how you can consider that not forced.

    61. Re:forced? by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      ...nothing says I cannot walk right back out the front door.

      Wanna bet? I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but google "John Tyner." When he made his famous "Don't touch my junk!" comment to the TSA screener, they threatened him with an $11,000 fine* because it is a violation of federal law to exit the screening area (not just proceed to the gate, but also to leave the airport through the front doors) without completing the screening process once you have begun. Ostensibly, that's to prevent a terrorist from bailing once he realizes he's about to be caught; the tin-foil-hat in me suspects it's to coerce people into submitting to things they would ordinarily deck someone for doing (or attempting to do).

      *IIRC, they dropped the charges against him, and in a similar fashion, Sharon Cissna of Alaska was allowed to leave once they determined who she was, but there was a woman in Texas who was, in fact, arrested for refusing to complete the screening (she had been raped several years earlier and would not allow TSA to touch her).

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    62. Re:forced? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Still, I had to completely empty my pockets including my ID and boarding pass; usually those are the two things I leave in my pockets. I don't know how that was a threat to national security.

      Just to make sure you're not hiding a flint or ceramic razor in the boarding pass or ID. Of course you might be hiding one in your mouth. Didn't they check there?

    63. Re:forced? by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Some people have been arrested, but not for trying to leave. Just typical trumped 'contempt of cop' charges for people who weren't sufficiently meek and servile in the presence of the pork.

      In theory a 'double opt out', where you opt out of both the nudoscope and the genital grope, could result in a $10,000 fine, but they haven't yet fined anyone even $1.00 for it so far. So it's pretty unlikely to happen.

      I have stayed away from airports since the introduction of the x-ray nudescanners and perv booths at my local airport, but when I do finally fly again I will definitely be double opting out of both the scope and the grope if I cannot manage to make it through the walk-through metal detector before being selected for the sexual humiliation line.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    64. Re:forced? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      No, almost nobody thing Rosa Parks was an asshole. ... I'm sure plenty thought her an asshole because her actions (or lack thereof) caused an incident, even if her actions in isolation were not asshole-ish.

      Lol. Asshole is in the eye of the beholder. Just because you think the social norms being broken are unjust doesn't mean everyone thinks so. In fact, if that were the case, they wouldn't be social norms in the first place.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    65. Re:forced? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      The screener is just a person doing a job. They aren't a tyrant, they aren't a terrorist, and being rude to them personally serves no purpose except to satisfy your urge to be rude.

      A person who has sought out a job where they wield authority without responsibility. While it may be futile and even personally inconveniet to reflect the pain they cause back on them, it does not make it unjust.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    66. Re:forced? by Dancing+Propeller+He · · Score: 1

      We routinely refuse the scanners (Security always seem to get excited and yell "We have an OPT OUT") But a number of times they seem to want to test your resolve. The process is so chaotic that we were gestured to go through the scanner 3 times before we actually got the privilege of being groped. I have a sneaky suspicion that they are trying to train us to not "opt-out".

    67. Re:forced? by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      A person who has sought a job where they wield a paycheck. Get off your high horse - there's nothing that makes the TSA people special here. It's a shitty job and I imagine most people working it would rather work somewhere else.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    68. Re:forced? by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

      And if Moe says he wants to ass-rape you or he's going to beat you senseless, are you going to be courteous and lube up for him?

    69. Re:forced? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      ... but there was a woman in Texas who was, in fact, arrested for refusing to complete the screening (she had been raped several years earlier and would not allow TSA to touch her).

      And I'll bet she was released with no charges filed, because there was nothing to charge her with. IIRC, there is no obligation to be screened, you just won't fly. Anything more no longer borders on a police state.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    70. Re:forced? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      >"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

      Are we even getting a little temporary safety from all this?

    71. Re:forced? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Sure the muckity-mucks have more responsibility, but the front-line troops are their of there own free will. Giving them a free pass is to shit on all the people who did choose not to be a part of the TSA's war on dignity.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    72. Re:forced? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I'm hardly a sycophant. I'd like to kindly ask you to go fuck off.

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

      You all seem to be mistaking courtesy with compliance.

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

      If you dont realize the terrorists won, I fell sorry for you, as I recall Bin Laden wanted to send the US broke.
      Its going pretty well so far. When you allow yourself to be terrorised the terrorists win.

    75. Re:forced? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      as I recall Bin Laden wanted to send the US broke.

      As a means to an end.

      When you allow yourself to be terrorised the terrorists win.

      That's something like a platitude - sounds nice, but doesn't quite capture the reality of the situation.

      The terrorists "win" when their objectives are met.

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

      Fat people can hide things in their fat folds

      Like thin terrorists.

    77. Re:forced? by ktappe · · Score: 1

      And they have the power to detain you until you miss your flight.

      Which is still way cheaper than replacing a $10K insulin pump.

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    78. Re:forced? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      IIRC, there is no obligation to be screened, you just won't fly.

      And you are wrong:

      ...included police escorting him from the screening area and a supervisor saying he could face a civil lawsuit...

      Apparently not. He was escorted away by police, not arrested. And he could face a civil fine? Since when does violating a federal "law" result in a civil lawsuit and/or fine?

      Anything more no longer borders on a police state.

      I agree with you. But that does not disprove my point, although it does neatly summarize my objection to the existing laws.

      I'm glad we agree on that much. BTW, my original statement about not being charged was in relation to the only stated arrest - the woman in Tx. You can be arrested for a lot of things. Many arrests end with no charges filed. You can think of it as honest mistakes or harassment, however you wish or the facts around the particular case lead you to believe. Given the TSA's history, I wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    79. Re:forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we have two creeps working together; they pick cute chicks for each other. One forces them through the mm-wave scanner while the other masturbates furiously in the backroom, out of sight. I guess they require some extra funding to buy more tissues. Also, scanner-pictures may be trivially saved for later sharing with other creeps and perverts.

      Besides, if the intended target refuses to go through the mm-wave scanner, you get the bonus feature, extravagant groping. Since the assumption is that anyone refusing the scanner is actively begging for more invasive groping, you are blameless.

    80. Re:forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I flew, they were putting all of the chubby women through. If you were a guy or skinny, you didn't go through. Bunch of bastards

      Uh, no. It's pretty easy to fool a patdown and hide shit in the fat rolls, it's a fairly common method of smuggling everything from drugs to cash.
      I'm no fan of the TSA or the current theater we're apparently OK with enduring as a society, but quite frankly I don't really give a shit if some fat sack of lard had their sensibilities offended because they were singled out for being a disgusting fatbody. Maybe those are a couple of Christmas hams you're smuggling around in your back pockets, maybe they aren't, either way it's not fucking normal and ought to be investigated.

    81. Re:forced? by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Sigh...I won't continue to argue the point with you. The CNN link I provided above quotes TSA's security director stating that walking away from security screening once you have started it is a violation of federal law. You can make whatever assertions you want, but until you provide evidence that Aguilar was either lying or mistaken, youropinionisn't worth the paper it's printed upon.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    82. Re:forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like it's much easier for someone to stand in a scanner than it is to manually search them.

    83. Re:forced? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      "Why?"
      "I don't trust those scanners"

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    84. Re:forced? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Tyner: Argue what point? He was not arrested. He was also making a point, exercising his right to free speech and, honestly, standing up for his rights.

      Regarding Aguilar, find me the law that was violated. I looked, there is no mention of such law. Note: I did not visit the TSA run sites, since the TSA itself seems to be violating several federal laws. Their credibility on anything they say outside of known facts should be challenged. There are plenty of stories out there about TSA or their agents violating all sorts of laws and nothing really happening about it. The scary thing is that if they are true, we don't need to worry about devolving into a police state, the Gestapo is already here.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    85. Re:forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you have the right not to fly. See? Everyone is happy.

    86. Re:forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One tap on the walkie for hotties, two taps for not sure if legal, 3 taps for celebs. Here's my phone, just press this button to take pictures of the monitor.

    87. Re:forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this was a case of a TSA employee being an idiot

      I am going to generalize here... All TSA employees are idiots. Yeah I have ran into a few who are friendly and don't seem to hate their lives but most of them seem unhappy and love the fact that someone appointed them a power position. When I flew back from Miami I stepped through the scanner and the TSA douche on the other side of the scanner looked me directly in the face and said: "I'm surprised you made it through". I promptly responded with: "I'll be surprised if you get laid before you are 60". He scowled at me because he thought he had the upper hand.

      Moral of the story? In places where people abuse power make sure to put said people in their place.

    88. Re:forced? by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Nobody is saying give them a free pass to shit on people. I'm simply saying give them the benefit of the doubt and don't shit on them first. You know, no sanction to bigotry and all...

      --
      +1 Disagree
    89. Re:forced? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Nobody is saying give them a free pass to shit on people.

      Right, nobody is saying that. Not even me. Go back and read what I wrote again.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    90. Re:forced? by DogDude · · Score: 1

      By flying and subjecting yourself to this kind of garbage, you're not really helping things...

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    91. Re:forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      disturbingly, you can opt out... and turn around to leave the airport.
      There's no opting out just to get into the airplane without being scanned.

  4. Stop Travelling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is why I'm no longer travelling by plane anymore. I've chosen to spend my hard earned money at home, rather than pay to be groped.

    Sure, there may be the point where I have to fly in an emergency, but if I have the choice, I'll take a train or drive.

    Not that it'll make a difference, because it won't. There are too many people who either don't care of don't have a choice (business travel, etc). The TSA and CATSA people are real people trying to do their jobs, and I understand the point of having them there and doing that job, I just don't want to be involved.

    1. Re:Stop Travelling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I once took a train from Rochester, NY to Spokane, WA. It took 2 days and 5 hours.

      I'll take the 6 hours plus a grope any day.

    2. Re:Stop Travelling by SnapaJones · · Score: 2

      You're only letting the TSA stick around longer. If you protest by not flying (if you have the option to), then eventually they'll get the message. I stopped flying completely.

      The TSA is a piece of garbage that needs to be completely abolished. Freedom and privacy > security.

    3. Re:Stop Travelling by DrLang21 · · Score: 1

      And this is exactly why I still fly in spite of my desire to take a train. The only reasonable option for that duration of a train ride, sleeper cars, cost a lot more than a plane ticket.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    4. Re:Stop Travelling by Cosgrach · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the sleeper cars are a great way to go. I use them all the time when I travel any distance.

      Honestly, the train is by far and away the better way to travel. I'd only get on a plane now if it were a dire emergency or if I had to go overseas. Although booking a cabin on a freighter has a certain appeal. Really, you guys who live life in the fast lane where you think that you *have* to be there *now* are really missing out. Relax, get a book and take the train.

      --
      Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
    5. Re:Stop Travelling by geekoid · · Score: 1

      They wouldn't if they stop subsidizing passenger air flight.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Stop Travelling by DrLang21 · · Score: 1

      They also subsidize train transit, including sleeper cars.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    7. Re:Stop Travelling by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 2

      If enough people stop flying then the TSA will have a bunch of over-employment and beg Congress to search busses and trains.

    8. Re:Stop Travelling by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Cry me a river. It takes me five days to get to Washington, and I don't believe I can catch a train through Canada (although I could take a ferry to Washington, at roughly double the cost of an airplane flight, and four times as long). I still won't fly. It pisses my wife off, but I tell her if a TSA goon were to touch her or my daughter, she'd better be able to make the mortgage payment (she can't) because I'll be in jail. TSA "inspected" my wife's underwire bra in 2006, I think it was. I vowed *never* to let that happen to my family again.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    9. Re:Stop Travelling by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      You're only letting the TSA stick around longer. If you protest by not flying (if you have the option to), then eventually they'll get the message. I stopped flying completely.

      You've limited yourself to one geographical area that can be serviced by your automobile. If gas prices keep on climbing without wages climbing too, your accessible geographical area will shrink down to maybe 4 or 5 blocks. Now, maybe the Previous Regime and the Current Regime don't have vested interest in keeping you in one place, but how bout future Regimes?

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    10. Re:Stop Travelling by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Have you considered just not flying commercial? There's no TSA on the rich people side of the airport....

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  5. EMC compliance by necro81 · · Score: 5, Informative

    FYI: medical products, especially ones that have the potential to kill if they malfunction, have to undergo substantial testing to demonstrate their immunity to electromagnetic interference. This includes stuff like TV, radio, and cellular transmissions, microwave ovens and WiFi. There are also special field frequency/strength combinations, such as the typical medical detector or consumer anti-theft device.

    However, there aren't regulations regarding immunity to mm-wave and THz scanners, and certainly not at the intensities these devices use. I suspect that, if you were to test a broad range of existing medical products, many of them would fail, because many of them have mm-scale electrical features (especially, circuit board traces) that would be highly susceptible.

    1. Re:EMC compliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      TFA says nothing about it being a mm-wave scanner, although it's possible that could be what they use at that airport. Since this is the US, though, it was more likely X-ray backscatter. Can someone verify the type of scanner?

    2. Re:EMC compliance by _LORAX_ · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to wikipedia ( I know I know ) Salt Lake City uses MM wave and not backscatter. Either way they microwaved and damaged a piece of medical equipment after assuring the user that it was perfectly save for that equipment. Unlike an implanted medical device the insulin pump would be susceptible to MM scans.

    3. Re:EMC compliance by Cassini2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      From an electrical point of view, many medical devices are simply to sensitive to be made immune to induced interference. The noise will have to affect them some how. It is just a matter of how big the noise source is (magnitude), the frequency of the noise source (Hz), and what geometry it sits relative to the medical device (coupling.)

      Obviously, the TSA has found a big enough noise source.

      In particular, the difficulty with mm-wave interference is that it can induce noise directly onto the geometries of integrated circuits and thin-film devices. The only way to guard against the problem would be to heavily shield the chips in question. Maybe it is time for medical devices to start using radiation-hardened integrated circuits. Radiation hardened circuits are designed to withstand short and intense blasts of EMI, including high-frequency EMI sources.

    4. Re:EMC compliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The TSA should be required to compensate the victim in this circumstance, because they subjected the victim to something they haven't even tested to see if it works with medical devices. They shouldn't be immune to civil law.

    5. Re:EMC compliance by DanTheStone · · Score: 4, Informative

      I did a little searching, and decided not to moderate on this article. Here's a news article saying they were adding millimeter-wave scanners at Salt Lake City, so the summary/title is correct. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/50590050-79/tsa-scanner-airport-body.html.csp

    6. Re:EMC compliance by redbeardcanada · · Score: 1

      The article seems to be /.'d, so I did not read, but do we know for sure that the THz scan caused the failure? This could be a coincidence (this is not a 'do cigarettes really cause cancer' question, this is a was an actual root cause analysis performed?).

      THz radiation has a very low penetration depth, and I assume that most medical devices would be relatively immune to this due to their packaging even if EMC regulations don't require testing for it...

      PS this is also not a defence of your friendly, welcoming TSA!

    7. Re:EMC compliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I did RF compliance and sensor design for two insulin pumps. An insulin pump is considered a Class 2 medical device, which means that it is an acceptable to stop delivering insulin and alert the user in case of a failure. The user would then rely on manual delivery until the fault cleared.

      A Class 3 would be required to continue delivering therapy (and announce the error) in a single fault situation. This is reserved for devices where a manual fail-over isn't a safe option.

    8. Re:EMC compliance by DrLang21 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe it's time for the TSA to have their imaging equipment evaluated by the FDA like every other piece of human imaging equipment out there. Or better yet, stop using it.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    9. Re:EMC compliance by geekoid · · Score: 1

      " have to undergo substantial testing to demonstrate their immunity to electromagnetic interference."
      no. They have to be reasonable resistant against certain ranges of electromagnetic interference.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:EMC compliance by necro81 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I should have qualified the statement. "Immunity" as I meant it, and as the applicable standards (IEC 60601-1, IEC 61000-4, ETSI EN 300, etc.), mean it, means that the interference may be coupled into the device, but the device must be robust enough to not create a hazardous situation for the user or operator. Depending on the risk classification of the device and the manufacturer's risk mitigation plan, this could mean 1) refraining from doing something untoward, 2) ceasing operation and alerting the user/operator until the interference clears, 3) continuing to operate normally even in the face of interference (up to the power levels of the test). Cases (1) and (2) would be examples of fail safe operation; the third would be fail operative. I think this is not all that different from what you meant.

    11. Re:EMC compliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They shouldn't be putting ANY electronic devices in the scanner, especially ones that can kill the person they are connected to. The only way to protect a device from close proximity mm-wave radiation is to make the case block it, which is difficult, expensive and in some cases will interfere with the actual device function. Otherwise you're just gambling the intensity is low enough to not create any problems. If I was picking a frequency range to mess us PCB based devices, mm-wave is what I'd choose.

    12. Re:EMC compliance by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      In particular, the difficulty with mm-wave interference is that it can induce noise directly onto the geometries of integrated circuits and thin-film devices.

      It's similar to the problem of getting that kind of equipment certified not to spew EM radiation all over the place, except much harder. The reason it's harder is that short wavelengths can diffract through much smaller holes. When the radiation is on the inside trying to get out, that could be worse, since diffracted waves die off fast, so you have to be very close to the device to measure it. The other way around, the innards are very close to the shielding since modern devices are small and the incoming radiation can be much stronger.


      Maybe it is time for medical devices to start using radiation-hardened integrated circuits. Radiation hardened circuits are designed to withstand short and intense blasts of EMI, including high-frequency EMI sources.

      Rad hard devices are designed to protect against ionizing radiation where a high energy particle leaves a trail of ionized crap through whatever it hits. It won't help against low frequency EM radiation. THZ is low frequency compared to X rays and gamma rays.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  6. Is it possible to just leave? by tirerim · · Score: 2

    Once you enter the security line, is it possible to just leave and not get on your flight if they refuse to do a manual search? Or are you at their complete mercy? I've never had a problem getting one with my own pump, but this story makes me nervous.

    In any case, I really hope she sues them and wins.

    P.S. This is probably a good time to mention Rand Paul's End the TSA petition and bill. I'm not usually a big fan of him, but this is one thing I can get behind.

    1. Re:Is it possible to just leave? by firex726 · · Score: 1

      You can, but then they may very well arrest you for acting suspicious; and they will still hold you for hours of questioning.

    2. Re:Is it possible to just leave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you can leave, but you may be subject to about 10k in fines.

    3. Re:Is it possible to just leave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point of interest: they can not arrest you for acting suspicious. Arrest implies there's some kind of due process.

      But, yeah, they'll totally hold you for however long they want.

    4. Re:Is it possible to just leave? by Altus · · Score: 1

      Of course they aren't supposed to refuse a manual search if you request one and you are supposed to be free to leave, but clearly, policy or not, sometimes things don't go that way. Heck if you make a big deal about not going through the scanner (rightly) and then go to leave the could hold you for acting suspicious.

      Seems like the way to go would be to remove the pump for security and put it in your cary on (which is only subjected to the traditional X-ray scanner).

      Certainly a pain in the ass and it shouldn't be necessary but its probably not worth the risk. Of course if it was a piece of equipment that you can't go without long enough to go through security that would be more of a problem.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    5. Re:Is it possible to just leave? by firex726 · · Score: 1

      OK fine; you're not under arrest, you're just being held against your will till they are satisfied.

    6. Re:Is it possible to just leave? by mianne · · Score: 1

      I second Sycraft's concern. I signed the petition, and have been getting emails thanking me for my support of ending the Federal Reserve and other loony ideas and a message even had the gall to identify me as a "conservative." (I don't identify as a "liberal" either, but I was taken aback by that)

      I opted out, and, so far, have received one more mailing since, but it seems like the petition is more of a backdoor to try and promote Rand Paul and solicit campaign contributions than an actual petition drive against the TSA.

      --
      Javascript, cookies, flash, and ActiveX must be enabled in order to view this sig.
    7. Re:Is it possible to just leave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once you enter the security line, is it possible to just leave and not get on your flight if they refuse to do a manual search? Or are you at their complete mercy? I've never had a problem getting one with my own pump, but this story makes me nervous.

      Officially, attempting to leave the line once "you have begun the screening process" is a civil violation subject to a fine of up to $11,000.

      Seriously. TSA can do what they want and threaten you with a fine for not submitting to their authoritah. (They often threaten arrest, which IIRC making such a threat is sometimes a crime of its own.)

    8. Re:Is it possible to just leave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once you enter the security line, is it possible to just leave and not get on your flight if they refuse to do a manual search?

      If you try to leave without going through the checkpoint, you're getting on a flight, but it may not be going where you wanted.

      On the plus side, I hear that Cuba is nice and sunny this time of year.

    9. Re:Is it possible to just leave? by noc007 · · Score: 1

      One can be held without being charged for 24 hours last time I checked.

    10. Re:Is it possible to just leave? by DrLang21 · · Score: 1

      So they kidnap you instead.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    11. Re:Is it possible to just leave? by firex726 · · Score: 1

      Well yea, that is in a nutshell what it is, only government sanctioned and in a more systematic way.

    12. Re:Is it possible to just leave? by geekoid · · Score: 0

      no, no and no.

      The answer to bad airport security isn't no airport security. It's good airport security.

      Please, don't abolish the TSA, let's just return it to one the puts peoples rights and safety first.
      Rand Paul wants to eliminate it so his buddies can get a lucrative contract. Nothing more. You think it's bad now? wait until it's private security force and you have no recourse what so ever.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    13. Re:Is it possible to just leave? by torkus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes. By the police.

      TSA agents are not police no matter how much they try to act like them. The real problem is people *need* to fly in many cases. This is a 16 year old girl on her way home - she didn't have the option to cancel a trip because of a bad tsa policy. She's also (in many states at least) too young to drive and definitely too young to rent a car from almost any company. That leaves busses and trains - without advance planning by a minor far from home. She had effectively no choice but to submit to screenings - and THIS is why the fact you cannot refuse TSA/FAA rules on the basis that flying is not a 'need' is utter bullshit.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    14. Re:Is it possible to just leave? by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      As opposed to whose buddies are building those mm wave and backscatter scanners? Everybody's hands are in everybody's pockets. Also, don't forget that airport security had been private before the TSA. I'd argue there was more recourse back then - far easier for private companies to fire employees than it is to fire public employees.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    15. Re:Is it possible to just leave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't verified this but I've heard that his proposition isn't to end the screenings it is just to privatize them so that government isn't doing the screens.

    16. Re:Is it possible to just leave? by shentino · · Score: 1

      Leave, not get on your flight, and *forfeit your non refundable fare*

    17. Re:Is it possible to just leave? by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      You think it's bad now? wait until it's private security force and you have no recourse what so ever.

      When it's a federal security force and you have no recourse whatsoever? I don't see much difference.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    18. Re:Is it possible to just leave? by noc007 · · Score: 1

      Yes, thank you for the correction.

      The TSA agents at the airport are not LEOs and I don't believe they have the authority to detain someone. That being said, they can have a police officer detain one, FAMS are LEOs, and the TSA supposedly has other groups that are LEOs.

    19. Re:Is it possible to just leave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The dictionary definition of the word "arrest" is precisely that: hold you and prevent you from leaving.

      They're playing word games by telling you that they can "hold you" but it's not an "arrest".

    20. Re:Is it possible to just leave? by tirerim · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, they're not proof against x-rays, either, and I've also been warned against going through a backscatter x-ray scanner with it. If they really forced me to go through one, I would try to get them to do a manual inspection of just the pump, but if they refuse to do that then there aren't any options left aside from not getting on the plane.

    21. Re:Is it possible to just leave? by tirerim · · Score: 1

      I guess you never flew before 2001. The old system was private security, and they did a much better job of it: just as safe (don't tell me that the TSA is any better at preventing people from bringing things like box cutters on, because they aren't), with much less hassle.

    22. Re:Is it possible to just leave? by tirerim · · Score: 1

      Still probably better than taking the risk of forfeiting my $5,500 insulin pump. The warranty is pretty good, but I'm not sure it covers acts of idiot federal employees.

    23. Re:Is it possible to just leave? by DogDude · · Score: 1

      No. Nobody NEEDS to fly. Most places are reachable by other means. It's inconvenient not to fly, but that's your decision: inconvenience, or giving up your dignity. Most people don't value their dignity/self respect all that much.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
  7. RTFM by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm rather surprised that the TSA doesn't (appear) to have a manual to deal with known issues like insulin pumps, joint prostheses, etc. I wouldn't expect rank and file workers to know the answer to everything but there should be a way to look stuff up.

    Being rude, however, is absolutely never appropriate. Even if you think the person is the next 'medical device bomber' being professional and polite should always be required.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:RTFM by firex726 · · Score: 1

      That's the ting, since they are not common and no one really has a scanner like the ones they use to test with, no one could adequately say how the pump would have been affected.

    2. Re:RTFM by vlm · · Score: 1

      Being rude, however, is absolutely never appropriate. Even if you think the person is the next 'medical device bomber' being professional and polite should always be required.

      The sole purpose of the TSA is to intimidate the general population. I'm not seeing "being polite" as helping with that mission.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:RTFM by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      I'm rather surprised that the TSA doesn't (appear) to have a manual to deal with known issues like insulin pumps, joint prostheses, etc. I wouldn't expect rank and file workers to know the answer to everything but there should be a way to look stuff up.

      If they could read a manual or act politely, they would probably have a better job like working at Starbucks.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    4. Re:RTFM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. The TSA *does* have a screening checkpoint operating procedure that includes handling medical devices. The SOP is Sensitive But Unclassifed / Sensitive Security Information, and we the public are not allowed to see it to make sure they are following their own procedures.

      2. TSA has repeatedly gone on campaigns aggressively smashing rude behavior -- by passengers. They have always claimed rudeness by screeners are "isolated incidents" despite all evidence that the TSA culture promotes rudeness by screeners. :(

      And the CAPTCHA is "dumber". How appropriate.

    5. Re:RTFM by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      I would not think so. There are so many devices out there. Keeping something like that up to date would be a nightmare. Every year new things are being invented and medical devices are become more customized to individual situations. It would have to centralize with a low ranking bureaucrat reviewing each application – soon to have a massive backlog.

      This story is a bit off topic, but it’s funny and it does illustrate a point. Some years back a friend of mine goes into a liquor store to buy wine coolers(1 4 pack.). He gets carded, and the manager declares the driver license to be fake – after all it looked like it had been created by a laser printer and a laminator. And it looks like nothing in his reference book (See - there is a manual in this story).

      Which was true. South Dakota had just switched to a new driver’s license (my friend was one of the first to get them) – made with a laser printer and a laminator. (It was kind of nice to walk into the DMV and walk out with a new license in under 30 minutes. There was a hologram, so it did not look totally bogus, but). So the manager calls the local Sheriff, and he drives in. A State Patrol hears the conversations on the C.B., has heard of these new licenses, wants to see one, so drives in as well.

      At this point his girlfriend, who was waiting in the car, got to be worried.

      Point being, there is going to be no way to standardize this things, and I don’t trust the judgment of a frontline TSA to evaluate complex technical issues. Live with risk.

    6. Re:RTFM by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm rather surprised that the TSA doesn't (appear) to have a manual to deal with

      Whistle-blowers have already testified that even they are not allowed to see the manual. Other countries consider the TSA to be a joke and a money-scam.

      --
      Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
    7. Re:RTFM by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Then you err on the side of caution. Especially with a medical device!
      That should be in the handbook.

    8. Re:RTFM by firex726 · · Score: 2

      Oh I agree, but then again look who we're talking about in this case?
      They don't even follow their policy when it's explicitly written down in their handbook.

    9. Re:RTFM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you're more likely to have an unpleasant experience as a result.
      You reap what you sow.

    10. Re:RTFM by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Excellent. A secret instruction manual.

      How exactly does that work?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    11. Re:RTFM by torkus · · Score: 1

      Right intentions, wrong topic.

      They err on the side of caution in "preventing" terrorism.

      Moral justification by the idiots making the rules runs along the lines of 'any policy exception we make a rule will be utilized by terrorists.' What is truly ironic is the existing exceptions offer ample opportunity for terrorists - except the opportunity is realistically useless. No one is going to take over a plane even if they bring an AK47 on board. Crash it? Possibly. Kill people, probably. Take over it? No, that will never happen while there's passengers on the plan who lived through or heard about 9/11.

      Of course, anything that might actually, realistically help prevent terrorism would just be considered racial profiling and thrown out.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    12. Re:RTFM by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      It probably is in the handbook, but that takes soooo much more effort to do things *right*

      --
      +1 Disagree
    13. Re:RTFM by camperdave · · Score: 1

      In a situation like this, or for anything out of the ordinary, the TSA agent should have politely had the woman step over to a supervisor and then proceed with the next victi... um... person in line.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    14. Re:RTFM by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      How exactly does that work?

      I'd tell you, but it's classified.

      Rest assured, however, it all works great. Did you see any more planes flying into buildings in US since 9/11? No? See, it works!

      Can we have another budget increase now? 'cause, you know, it's a mighty fine country you have there, would be a shame if anything happened to it...

    15. Re:RTFM by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Excellent. A secret instruction manual.

      How exactly does that work?

      It's a secret. Now hurry, or you'll miss your flight. The beaches around Guantanamo are reputed to be lovely this time of year. Send me a post card.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    16. Re:RTFM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what happened then?

      They all came for the ID card peep show, and left, and that's it?

      Borrrrrrrriiiiiinnnnnnnnggggg.

  8. pacemakers ?? by VEGETA_GT · · Score: 1

    This can be considered scary if devices you can not remove could be affected. IE pacemakers, screw with that and you could kill the person. But then take items like a advanced artificial arm with loads of electronics getting fried by these scanners. These types of devices are expensive and usually customized to the person. So yes better training needed and the pat down should be some what realistic for someone who just cant do through the device.

    1. Re:pacemakers ?? by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

      Yes, but with the revelation that there are more advanced bombs being created, how do we know that your "pacemaker" isn't just a surgically implanted bomb?

      I just got a vision of seventeenth century witch trials, where a woman was tied up and weighted down with a stone, then thrown in the river. If she floated, she was a witch and burned. If she sank, she was not a witch (but likely drowned by the time she was fished out).

      Now we'll just send you through the scanner, and if you die, it was a real medical device. If you don't, it's a bomb, and you'll be carted off. Either way, dangerous items are prevented from being on planes!

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:pacemakers ?? by jsepeta · · Score: 1

      screwing with your insulin pump could also kill you.

      --
      Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
    3. Re:pacemakers ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone, even ignorant TSA workers, knows what pacemakers are.

      My mother had an implant that would probably set off a metal detector, and her doctor always told her if she was concerned, to say it was a pacemaker because they'd at least understand that. I always thought that was a dubious proposition because the failure mode means you've run into the one TSA worker on the planet who happens to know better, and now you've lied to the TSA.

      (Also, for what it's worth, I would tend to trust a doctor over the TSA, but I would not trust a doctor unreservedly on these matters, either. My mother's doctor swore up and down that the implant wouldn't set off the detector. I know nothing about the implant except its material, but I understand detectors quite well and I knew eventually she'd hit one that would go off. I was right-- those detectors have variable settings, and at their most sensitive they will ping on gold teeth, and possibly even mercury amalgam fillings. On their lowest settings, you could almost strap your ass in plate armor and ride a howitzer right on through. But that was just a metal detector on a passive chunk of metal-- the worst that could happen is extreme inconvenience.

      (For something more active, like MM-waves or THz-waves, or for actual electronic devices like an insulin pump or a pacemaker, I would err on the side of extreme caution. Christ only knows if those things have similar sensitivity/intensity settings, and sensitive electronics do not like having their PCB traces turned into conducting antennas to shoot travelling waves into the memory elements.)

    4. Re:pacemakers ?? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I just got a vision of seventeenth century witch trials, where a woman was tied up and weighted down with a stone, then thrown in the river. If she floated, she was a witch and burned. If she sank, she was not a witch (but likely drowned by the time she was fished out).

      I think your view of 17th century witch trials has been distorted by too much Monty Python.

      Witchcraft Trials in the 17th Century were generally run by the Inquisition, and pretty much required a confession for a conviction.

      Hence the use of torture to extract a confession. After all, everyone knows that noone would lie under torture.

      And yes, this was a common belief then. It lost a bit of appeal after Friedrich von Spee wrote his book on the subject, and provided good, logical arguments as to why torture didn't guarantee truth....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:pacemakers ?? by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      It also depends if you were Protestant or Catholic.

      Well-ordered trails with confessions extracted under torture were very Catholic.

      Protestants witch trials were closer to Monty Python. Some were mob lynching. Other towns hired witch hunters – who were paid for each witch they found (and guess how may they found?).

    6. Re:pacemakers ?? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Protestants witch trials were closer to Monty Python. Some were mob lynching. Other towns hired witch hunters â" who were paid for each witch they found (and guess how may they found?).

      Alas,no.

      Yes, some were mob lynchings. Which were illegal even then.

      And yes, witch hunters were hired to do the work of locating witches. And like the Inquisition (which paid people a bounty for turning witches in), they never lacked for witches to investigate.

      However (there's always a however), witch "trials" involved a judge. And they weren't run like Monty Python. Nor did judges just take the word of the witch hunters...

      As I said, you generally had to get a confession. And torture was the preferred technique for extracting confessions (there have even been times and places where it was assumed that even a voluntary "confession" was unacceptable without verification by torture).

      Note, by the by, that Friedrich von Spee (the guy who finally convinced the Church that torture didn't guarantee truth) was a witch hunter once upon a time, for those interested in the history of such things...

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    7. Re:pacemakers ?? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      I thought if she floated, you built a bridge out of her.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  9. Not to belittle the incident... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It also shows that the manufacturer of the device may need to rethink it's strategy for redundancy, survivability and make sure the next design would make it through this type of condition. Although they (the manufacturer) may not have direct access to the screening tech, I'm sure they could afford a plane ticket to go through security with this type of device and test it.

    1. Re:Not to belittle the incident... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that will go over well at gate security.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:Not to belittle the incident... by _LORAX_ · · Score: 1

      MM wave .. aka, microwave. They are microwaving you to get their nudie pic. I mean, at least it's not ionizing radiation like the backscatter, but no, you don't want to put electronics through it.

  10. The most amazing part of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Savannah already has a new insulin pump. A company that heard her story quickly got it to her when she got back to Colorado."

    Despite the TSA, it appears there's still hope for humanity.

    1. Re:The most amazing part of the story: by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      A friends daughter has an Insulin pump. It has a lifetime warranty. She's at least a little nuts, drinks soda to piss off her parents, breaks the pump on purpose.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:The most amazing part of the story: by torkus · · Score: 1

      Your friends need to learn parenting and get her to a shrink. It's one thing to rebel against authority, it's another to openly and regularly make low-level suicide attempts.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
  11. Lawsuits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...not always frivolous.

    Sue the FUCK out of the TSA.

    1. Re:Lawsuits by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      Looks like 'antedate' manslaughter to me...

  12. avoid them thar rays! by Moblaster · · Score: 1

    She shouldn't have been subjected to it those rays anyway. If she asks for a pat down that's what she should have gotten. Although at 16 she should have enough gumption to stand up to a TSA agent anyway, especially with a doctor's note -- who's ALSO an authority figure.

    Besides the situation-specific danger, any rays strong enough to scan are enough to increase cancer risk. The fact they direct enough energy to disrupt an electromechanical device should be proof of their inherent danger anyway. It's my understanding the quantum energy of that radiation is related to the frequency-- and terahertz radition is pretty high up there on the reactivity scale.

    1. Re:avoid them thar rays! by X0563511 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Electrical devices like that are full of amplifiers and things like field-effect transistors - things that take small changes in, and output much (relatively) larger ones.

      It doesn't take much interference at all to cause problems, and this is made even worse that circuit traces etc can be resonant (where you most certainly will not) with the incoming interference, making things worse.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    2. Re:avoid them thar rays! by rb12345 · · Score: 1

      It's my understanding the quantum energy of that radiation is related to the frequency-- and terahertz radition is pretty high up there on the reactivity scale.

      In terms of energy per photon, teraherz radiation (with wavelength ~300um - microwave to far-infrared?) is far less energetic than visible light. The issue here is power at this specific freqency. The wiring of the integrated circuits in the pump is probably around the same as the radiation wavelength, so you have a reasonably well-tuned antenna receiving lots of power...

    3. Re:avoid them thar rays! by DrLang21 · · Score: 1

      How exactly do you expect our 16 year olds to stand up to an intimidating authority figure when we raise them all to be blindly obedient to authority figures? The appropriate solution is for those of us who do have the gumption to stand up for the rest. Refuse to vote for anyone who has ever supported the TSA. Better yet, vote for their rival, no matter how much you dislike their rival.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    4. Re:avoid them thar rays! by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      Besides the situation-specific danger, any rays strong enough to scan are enough to increase cancer risk. The fact they direct enough energy to disrupt an electromechanical device should be proof of their inherent danger anyway. It's my understanding the quantum energy of that radiation is related to the frequency-- and terahertz radition is pretty high up there on the reactivity scale.

      mm wave is not terahertz (sub-mm). The Los Alamos DNA simulations did not cover mm band and I don't know of any evidence the mm band poses any harm to humans..I sure would like to be made aware of such research if it does exist.

      TSA and the homeland security industrial complex needs to go on a severe diet. Body scanning and groping for threats you can't even detect is unacceptable.

    5. Re:avoid them thar rays! by torkus · · Score: 1

      +1

      Also when plenty of fully grown adults won't stand up to 'authority' like this how can you expect a 16 year old?

      Jeesh, when kids act out or thing for themselves they're labeled rebels. They they do what they're told they're labeled timid. No wonder kids are growing up so dysfunctional

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    6. Re:avoid them thar rays! by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Electrical devices like that should also be surrounded by a solid metal faraday cage. It is a medical device after all.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    7. Re:avoid them thar rays! by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      It's not hard to intimidate a 16 year old girl, even if you aren't an authority figure. Also, you can only expect her to be so insistent on BEING GROPED BY A COMPLETE STRANGER, which is how she would opt out of the scanner.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  13. I would recommend not signing that by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't know if it is a real petition or not, but what I do know is it is a real SPAM list. Ever since signing it, they've been bombarding me with shit asking for money and their opt out doesn't seem to want to opt out.

    I am more than a little annoyed.

    1. Re:I would recommend not signing that by Formorian · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wish I had points to mod you up more. I've been bombarded with Ron Paul/Dudley Brown/etc after signing that crap. So annoying.

    2. Re:I would recommend not signing that by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      But hey, political speech exemptions to CAN-SPAM, because we care about freedom of speech (for politicians).

    3. Re:I would recommend not signing that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I only got 2 SPam, which is pretty normal for any political activist e-mail list. You will probably get one a week.

      I have an e-mail just for this stuff.

    4. Re:I would recommend not signing that by Cosgrach · · Score: 1

      That's funny. I signed it as well, but I have not received a single piece of spam from them. Of course, now that I have gone and said that the flood gates will open.

      --
      Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
    5. Re:I would recommend not signing that by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I don't know if it is a real petition or not, but what I do know is it is a real SPAM list. Ever since signing it, they've been bombarding me with shit asking for money and their opt out doesn't seem to want to opt out.

      Classic. Its like they want to live up to the stereotypical criticisms of libertarianism. WWARD? (What Would Ayn Rand Do?)

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    6. Re:I would recommend not signing that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I signed it, as it is the one thing Rand Paul wants to do that I agree with. Might have been just an attempt to get email addresses...

      Immediately I started getting emails addressed to "Dear Fellow Conservative." Um, no, that's not me. Opt out did work for me, though. So far.

    7. Re:I would recommend not signing that by Ed_Pinkley · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the heads up. I signed it with a mailinator.com email. The other option would be to set a filter on your regular email.

      --
      "Long time listener, first time caller."
  14. One more reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    ... to just dump them thar thugs and kill off the TSA. Or the other way around if you must, I don't care.

    1. Re:One more reason... by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      I'd be all for killing the thugs too.

  15. Scariest phrase ever. by Sparticus789 · · Score: 2

    We're from the government and we're here to keep you safe!

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
    1. Re:Scariest phrase ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no no, it's only when they're here to help you that it's scary. That's why the Republicans are behind the TSA 99.9% (Ron Paul being the holdout).

      The Democrats are behind the TSA 99.9% because they're Union.

  16. Everytime.. by greywire · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Every time there's a story about the TSA making life unpleasant for Americans, a terrorist gets his wings..

    Congratulations, the terrorists have won.

    --
    -- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
    1. Re:Everytime.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every time there's a story about the TSA making life unpleasant for Americans, a terrorist gets his virgins..

      Congratulations, the terrorists have won.

      FTFY

    2. Re:Everytime.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no no no, a terrorist gets his 72 virgins.

    3. Re:Everytime.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhhhh...has anyone seen a terrorist with wings??? WTF!

    4. Re:Everytime.. by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Every time there's a story about the TSA making life unpleasant for Americans, a terrorist gets his wings..

      This is why we no longer need TSA. By now, the terrorists should have their own fricken' air force...

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    5. Re:Everytime.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every time there's a story about the TSA making life unpleasant for Americans, a dead terrorist gets another virgin...

      Congratulations, the terrorists have won.

    6. Re:Everytime.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations, now we have to fight an army of flying terrorists..

  17. TSA agents think they're God's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It has been shown time and time again that the TSA is useless. The biggest problem by far though is that the the people that are hired as TSA agents think they can do whatever they want to whoever they want without repercussion. My step mother has had both of her knee's replaced, and caries a card explaining that and yet she still gets treated like crap because the TSA agents think they're gods and can do whatever they want. They ignore her when she tried to show them the card that says they have to wand her instead of scan her, and then when they scan her, then they end of having to wand her anyway cause the the big pieces of metal in her knee's, thereby waisting her valuable time, mind you she travels at least 2/3 of the year for work, so she has to deal with this a lot. If they had better training and would show common sense and a little compassion, I think most people wouldn't really have a problem with the TSA.

  18. forensic analysis by hoxford · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I want to see the results of a forensic analysis of the unit to find out why it failed. if the scanner is putting out enough energy to permanently damage the circuits it's a strong argument against the safety of these things.

    1. Re:forensic analysis by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      If it was a millimeter scanner, most likely there was resonance with circuit trace(s). A resonance in the right spot (input to an opamp for example) and you could say further operation is undefined.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    2. Re:forensic analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I was under the impression that mm scanners were *passive*. I guess that shows me. The xray scanners (backscatter, or whatever they call them) are not passive, but mm scanners were suppose to be passive!

      I do agree that there is something wrong when things like this break electronic circuits. This means there is enough energy in these scanners to induce damaging currents in the circuits themselves. Normally an antenna will only generate very tiny currents and voltages, so if this thing breaks, it means the induced voltage/current must have been too much for the device to handle. Unless the device is really poorly designed (and I find that very doubtful), then the amount of energy these scanners emit must be quite high.

    3. Re:forensic analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if the scanner is putting out enough energy to permanently damage the circuits it's a strong argument against the safety of these things.

      Uh, no. A static discharge from walking across a rug is of no harm to humans but has many more times the amount
      of energy needed to destroy a CMOS circuit. The ability to damage a circuit does not equate to the ability to damage humans.

    4. Re:forensic analysis by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      This. As is so often quoted here on Slashdot: "correlation is not causation".

      OTOH, Slashdot has to have something for it's daily Two Minute Hate and the TSA is an easy and popular target.

  19. Spinal cord stimulator by Aeros · · Score: 1

    I have a spinal cord stimulator embedded in me and since then have only flown twice. Both times I has told to go through the scanning machine even though I have a medical can that says NOT to do that. I just turn the thing off and luckily it didn't get screwed up. I hate going through that whole mess of flying and am so happy I don't have to travel for work anymore. I can't stand the TSA. They are SERIOUSLY clueless!

    1. Re:Spinal cord stimulator by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      You were "told?"? You just say "I want to opt out."

      They may ask why. Just tell them. They can't refuse because they don't think it's a good reason.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    2. Re:Spinal cord stimulator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can't refuse because they don't think it's a good reason.

      You're very adorable, you know that? Thinking there's some magical force stopping them from detaining you until your plane's halfway to its destination like that, it's really quite cute. You're just like a little kid, or a mentally retarded young adult.

    3. Re:Spinal cord stimulator by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      The only reason they would do something like that is because you were acting like a belligerent asshole. For some reason, your post explains to me by this very logic why you would come to such a conclusion.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    4. Re:Spinal cord stimulator by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      I think the simplest hypothesis is that the TSA screeners are the angry assholes. They are also typically pedophiles and just sick fucks in general. Who else would take a job fondling children's genitals.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    5. Re:Spinal cord stimulator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pedophiles are people too.

  20. The Terrorists win again! by Dog-Cow · · Score: 2

    I hope her parents sue the TSA for attempted homicide and win enough to bankrupt the US.

    1. Re:The Terrorists win again! by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      If the US couldn't print its own currency as much as it would like, it would already be bankrupt.

      i.r.usian

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    2. Re:The Terrorists win again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is already bankrupt.

    3. Re:The Terrorists win again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bankrupt the US? Too late.

      http://www.moneynews.com/Economy/Walker-us-economy-tax/2012/04/16/id/436006

    4. Re:The Terrorists win again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope her parents sue the TSA for attempted homicide and win enough to bankrupt the US.

      I though the U.S. was already bankrupt! And anyway, the government steals from us, so it's not their money, but ours they would be taking!

    5. Re:The Terrorists win again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF?

  21. But but but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    millimeter waves are non-ionizing! How could they affect this system!?

    1. Re:But but but by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      They're still microwaves which can interfere with electronics. Same way you get weird noises from speakers etc. just before a cell phone rings nearby.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:But but but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't really penetrate that much, hell, they barely make it through the air. A cell phone is at about 2GHz plus the power levels are higher.

    3. Re:But but but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you know that... how? The operating frequencies, power and emission patterns of these scanners are classified.

    4. Re:But but but by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Actually the frequencies aren't classified per se. L3 Communications had some kind of paper on their web site a while back which indicated the frequency of their mmw scanner was in the 27 - 30 Ghz range. Technically those frequences aren't even in the millimeter range which starts at 30 Ghz. The data was kind of hidden away IIRC. At the tale end of some PDF file perhaps. It took me some time to find it. It also wouldn't surprise me if they were asked to take down that information "out of an abundance of caution". I don't think I've seen any specs on the power output of the devices though. That would be very interesting indeed.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  22. How the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    does TSA employes bring themselves to go to work every day?
    Everyone hates them, not just nutjobs.

  23. Oh, America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    America, you used to be like a big brother that we looked up to. Now you are more like the really weird uncle that the family never acknowledges or talks about. What happened?

    Let me tell you what happened. American people are getting exactly what they want. Either you voted for this mess or, by your inaction, you let it happen. And by remaining mute and not doing anything about it, you are allowing it to continue. You are allowing it to grow and fester.

    You have to do something if you are tired of the whole "give up your privacy or you are a terrorist" crap. You have to stand up if you don't want to keep fighting wars half way around the world. You must take action if you are sick about bailouts, corporate greed, and out-of-control lobbying.

    Or you could just stuff another Big Mac in your mouth and watch some more American Idol. Sigh.

    1. Re:Oh, America by Aeros · · Score: 1

      Says the AC..go figure!

    2. Re:Oh, America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America is the land of the obese and couch potatoes.
      What exactly did you expect ? The heroes that you see on american tv series ? That's a lie, a big fucking lie.
      Americans are afraid of their own shadow, so now they get the SS treatment.

    3. Re:Oh, America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya, that totally invalidates the message.

    4. Re:Oh, America by LordKane · · Score: 1

      His message was invalid by the middle of the second paragraph. The poster seems to conclude it's the fault of the people who voted AND the fault of those who did not vote. You either voted the mess in, or didn't vote and let the mess in. Sorry, but that's pretty weak. What is the GPs suggested correct course of action then?

      It seems like the suggestion is total uprising of the entire nation, bar none based on his blame of anyone in the country. We all know that is not even statistically feasible; people never agree on action to that degree. People protest the current state by the thousands every day and get little real attention and change almost nothing. Is the GP really saying the only correct course of action is to not vote and spend every day protesting or using violent revolt?

      Sounds like someone blaming everyone bu themselves to me.

      --
      "Victims, aren't we all?"
    5. Re:Oh, America by Cosgrach · · Score: 1

      Ummmm. Yeah. But he does have a valid point.

      --
      Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
    6. Re:Oh, America by shentino · · Score: 1

      If I could cast negative votes, I would have.

      How the fuck are you SUPPOSED to vote when the only people running are Kodos and Kang?

    7. Re:Oh, America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it's for the people that didn't vote. Or maybe it's for the peeps that are now (right now, this instant) doing nothing but watching as it all goes off the rails. My head hurts and I need some Mickey-Ds and 'Merican Idol.

    8. Re:Oh, America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that's the extent of your involvement in democracy? Once a year you tear your self away from American Idol and vote. And that's it? No wonder it's all going to hell. I think a healthy functioning democracy (for the people, by the people, blah, blah, blah) needs a bit more love and attention than that. Someone even said something about it needing the blood of patriots to be spilled.

  24. They didn't force her. by pavon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you read the article the TSA agents advised her that the insulin pump would not be damaged by the scanners, despite a doctors note to the contrary. She took their advice, assuming they knew what they were doing, and chose to go through the scanner rather than requesting a pat-down.

    While her actions are understandable, if she had simply requested a pat-down like the doctor instructed her to do rather than asking for a second opinion, this would have been avoided. Likewise if agents weren't so stupid as to disagree with a doctor's order on a matter they knew nothing about, this would have been avoided. Given their position of authority they should be liable for the cost of the pump since their negligence caused it to be destroyed.

    1. Re:They didn't force her. by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      She is likely to get the same response as another customer who asked, "How did my luggage get damaged? Why did the TSA cut the lock off?"

      "GO TO HELL" scrawled on the complaint form.

      Or maybe the handicapped soldier who asked, "Where did my 300 dollars disappear too? I put it right here in the tub."

      "You causing trouble?"
      "No sir."
      "Then shut up or we'll bar you from flying."
      The handicapped soldier boarded the plane & lost his 300.

      Or maybe the woman with the breast pump who was told, "You can't take that onboard." She was then forced to demonstrate it to the TSA woman to prove it was a breast pump, else it would have been confiscated & junked.

      Or the mother who was carrying milk for her newborn infant, and the TSA told her to dump it or else. She showed them printouts of TSA procedures and they tossed them in the trash. They then placed her in a glass jail for an hour, made her miss her flight, and refused to refund the ticket for the plane.

      THE SA DOESN'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT BROKEN DIABETIC PUMPS OR ANY OF THE FUCKING PASSENGERS. They are goons with power trips. They need to be fired and replaced with what we had pre-911 (xrays of baggage/metal detectors for passengers).

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    2. Re:They didn't force her. by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      No "the SA" was not a typo. :-)

      And no I'm not going to "cite" anything. Instead I'll just point you to infowars.com. You need to keep-up with the news, intead of living in the dark. Tyranny lives-on through the ignorance of the masses & their failure to stay up to date. You are sitting in front of a damn computer that is linked to thousands of news-sites..... there's really no excuse to say, "Oh I didn't know that."

      And yes I'm angry.
      Coreection: rage. I have a right to be fed-up when I see what our country has become due to the slovenliness of our People. Too busy playing games or watching TV or blindly believing the liars we call politicians, while 1 million innocents are killed or maimed in bombings, and we do Nothing.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    3. Re:They didn't force her. by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Also, if we didn't have pointless bureaucracy at airports that does no one any good, she'd be ok too.

    4. Re:They didn't force her. by kimvette · · Score: 0

      Which is why: Ron Paul 2012.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    5. Re:They didn't force her. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another sad Alex Joes cultist raging against the dying of the light. On the Internet.

    6. Re:They didn't force her. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Infowars? Really?

      Can't you keep your insanity to their website, rather than spreading the paranoia?

    7. Re:They didn't force her. by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Because you want a private police force that you have no recourse against doing this exact same thing?
      Wise up.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:They didn't force her. by geekoid · · Score: 2

      So you just choose to believe what infowars says without citation?
      That doesn't surprise me because pretty much everything you said was mad up crap.

      How about you focus you're rage on actual things and policy change and less on makings stuff up.

      " Too busy playing games or watching TV or blindly believing the liars we call politicians"
      ah, I see. Someone wan't verifiable evident and you call them lazy and liars.

      "while 1 million innocents are killed or maimed in bombings, and we do Nothing."
      SO, you call people names, and the detract from the issue at hand.
      You got nothing.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:They didn't force her. by kimvette · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, because I do not wish to exchange freedom for apparent security. I want it to be like it was up through the mid-90s: loved ones and friends being able to meet you or see you off right at the gate, children being able to be escorted directly to the gate by their parents, etc.

      You know, LIBERTY.

      I know, only the radical fringe lunatics believe in actual freedom nowadays.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    10. Re:They didn't force her. by berashith · · Score: 1

      this is the problem with a paranoid government agency that no one is allowed to question. You do not challenge their authority by offering a different way for them to do their job. This would be interpretted as asking to go through a pre-determined method to successfully defeat their measures. They have no reason to believe the doctors note is REALLY a doctors note, and have a false authority syndrome that they always know what is best, and should not be questioned.

      This sounds more like one really bad agent. hopefully it was a new one that just made a stupid mistake. I gave up on giving them the benefit of the doubt long ago however.

    11. Re:They didn't force her. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So aside from yelling on a soapbox in /. what SHOULD be done?

    12. Re:They didn't force her. by shentino · · Score: 1

      Even if they didn't use force she still didn't comply of her own free will.

      Considering that refusing to be searched implies forfeiting her non refundable plane fare, I'd call it duress.

    13. Re:They didn't force her. by AK+Marc · · Score: 0

      You want the freedom to exchange the perception of security with the certainty of no security. Ron Paul Liberty is the freedom to get roughed up by private persons without the government interfering.

    14. Re:They didn't force her. by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      I just keep in mind the old adage that 'even paranoids have enemies'.

      Yeah, TSA employees are the guys who couldn't make the cut at Burger King. Yeah, they're bullies with badges. But keep in mind that Alex Jones et al aren't after the TSA guy at the checkpoint, he's looking at the scumbags who came up with these 'great ideas'. Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and friends aren't dummies, in fact, they are pretty sharp people. Problem is, for people who claim to love America, they damned sure hate Americans as evidenced by their actions.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    15. Re:They didn't force her. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      That doesn't surprise me because pretty much everything you said was mad up crap.

      Actually, all situations involving TSA that were described in the original post have actually happened, as evidenced by a couple of simple Google searches.

    16. Re:They didn't force her. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Private police force would not do the same exact thing, because all that security theater costs money - a lot of it (the annual TSA budget is $8 billion this year). No private company would spend that much money on something that doesn't give them anything useful in return.

    17. Re:They didn't force her. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the revolution, secret police weren't fired.

      They were lined up against the wall.

      Just saying...

      I'd take fired. But I really don't think that's actually justice. They wore a badge while willingly breaking the highest law of the land...

      I'd kind of like to see a guillotine...

    18. Re:They didn't force her. by kimvette · · Score: 1

      . . . and you think Obamney's policy of extending the nanny state, increasing taxes, increasing deficit spending, and systematically eradicating personal liberties to be a better policy?

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    19. Re:They didn't force her. by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      Because you want a private police force that you have no recourse against doing this exact same thing?

      I'm no Paulite, but I would rather have a private security force that I might be able to successfully sue or boycott, as opposed to a government force that I can't. Really, my chances of successfully suing the TSA for something non-lethal are only slightly better than Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's chances of getting compensation from the US military for being waterboarded.

    20. Re:They didn't force her. by AK+Marc · · Score: 0

      I never said that. Quit lying to make up things, and maybe you'll actually find out what others think.

    21. Re:They didn't force her. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck, I'd like my rights back, too, but then we'd all have to have a revolution, and lots of people would get killed, and we'd need to set up another government and....

      Anything good on Hulu?

    22. Re:They didn't force her. by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>So you just choose to believe what infowars says without citation?

      Of course not. I reject about 10% of what they post as "overreaction" about trivial issues.
      AND they provide plenty of citations... about 10 links per post.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    23. Re:They didn't force her. by psevetson · · Score: 1

      Minor children can be escorted to the gate by their parents as little as a year ago. This took place on American at Newark, NJ, and involved getting a parent pass from the ticketing agent.

  25. Re:forced? OPT OUT by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 2

    The two words you have to say are "Opt Out". They are required to hand search you. If they refuse, make a fuss. Get arrested if necessary. Even better, call the press on your cell phone. They'd love a story like this.

  26. Insulin pumps can be taken off. by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    I feel like I must be missing something here.
    I believe insulin pumps are worn externally and not surgically inserted and it should be a very small matter to take one off to get through a screening or even for the entire flight.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Insulin pumps can be taken off. by cjmnews · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      You can disconnect for bathing, swimming, etc.

      If she was in the line and did not think ahead, it could have been handled like any other object we forget to remove from our pockets and go on the belt.

      If she would have thought ahead, then she could have had the pump in her bag away from the millimeter waves, and avoided most of the questions.
      She may have been pat down for the stent that is still in her for the pump to connect to, but that is minor compared to replacing a pump.

      Yes, the TSA is a waste of time to the traveler, but as long as you keep in mind that you can't avoid the idiocy, you can work around it and get through the hoops with little to no trouble.

      --
      You can lose something that is loose, so tighten the loose item so you don't lose it.
  27. Jessie Ventura by MrShaggy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    He has had hip replacement surgery. "Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura is suing the TSA and Homeland Security for humiliating and ‘offensive’ pat-down procedures he’s been subjected to during airport security checks that included ‘warrantless, non-suspicion-based offensive touching, gripping and rubbing of the genital and other sensitive areas of his body.’ "

    He is suing them in court.

    --
    I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
    1. Re:Jessie Ventura by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His law suit got thrown out of court because apparently federal courts do not have jurisdiction over TSA.

      So there you have it.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Ventura#Lawsuit_Against_the_TSA

      I guess Ventura is now on the FBI's list of "domestic terrorists", per their new criteria.

    2. Re:Jessie Ventura by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *tsk* They must not have recognized him.

      You bully those that don't have the power or money to fight back. The TSA absolutely knows that the only thing that could hinder their constant growth and expansion is if they bully the wrong person. Call it a hunch, but any political figure is going to be treated with nothing but friendly smiles and cheerful greetings.

      Well, since they've tagged at least one more "fancy" person, hopefully something can be done.

      Remember, one complaint from upper caste is equal to about 1,000,000 complaints from the proles.

    3. Re:Jessie Ventura by psevetson · · Score: 1

      I believe you have to have an Act of Congress authorizing you to sue, in order to actually prevail. Anyone can file suit.

    4. Re:Jessie Ventura by MrShaggy · · Score: 1

      I am Canadian. So I am unsure if you are funny or not./
      \

      --
      I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
  28. The logic behind it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone who asks for a manual search rather than a scan must be hiding something
    Therefore they must be a terrorist.
    They give medical reasons because they are an evil, lying terrorist.
    As they are evil terrorists with no real medical condition, they must be scanned
    If their equipment fails, its their fault for avoiding the scanner

    obviously

  29. TSA can't find people with common sense? by Lashat · · Score: 2

    You read the paperwork. Look at the device. Screen the passenger without the scanner. Document the incident with your peers and/or manager.

    Move on and save the agency $10k because you are allowed to act like a human being with common sense.

    --
    For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
    1. Re:TSA can't find people with common sense? by SnapaJones · · Score: 1

      No, they can't. Anyone with "common sense" wouldn't be working with the TSA, an organization designed to infringe people's freedom and privacy in exchange for a false sense of security.

    2. Re:TSA can't find people with common sense? by cjmnews · · Score: 1

      Paperwork can be faked. Quite easily.

      She should have taken the pump off, and put it in her carry-on.

      --
      You can lose something that is loose, so tighten the loose item so you don't lose it.
    3. Re:TSA can't find people with common sense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had any commonsense would you seriously want to work for the TSA?

    4. Re:TSA can't find people with common sense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd imagine that the employees are told with some frequency to do it by the book or they may be arrested for helping terrorism/inciting panic etc..

  30. Re:Is she stupid as well? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Maybe she's not stupid, just scared. Maybe she recently played Half Life 2. Those TSA goons can really fuck up your life if you piss them off...why take the chance? I always politely opt out and so far the TSA agents have been courteous but if I rolled one on a power trip, I'd probably cave rather than risk missing my flight or seeing the inside of a cell for a day or two before being released without charge.

  31. Tourimse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess twice why I don't even CONSIDER going to the US.

  32. Re:Is she stupid as well? by Overzeetop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because she's 16 and away from home, and probably just wants to get back. Quit expecting everyone to have a vigilate chip on their shoulder.

    You know, as adults, we should have already fixed this god damned problem with our government - not expect our children to have to rise up against the man for something as simple and common place as a plane flight.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  33. Re:Is she stupid as well? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chill out, there. She's just a 16 year old girl, not an internet tough guy like you.

  34. Rand Paul has it right by stevegee58 · · Score: 2

    Disband the TSA

    1. Re:Rand Paul has it right by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Vote for Ron Paul - one of his first actions will be using executive order privilege to cancel out all of Duhbya's and Obama's unconstitutional ones, then cancelling out the executive order privilege altogether to restore due process as defined in the Constitution.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    2. Re:Rand Paul has it right by qbast · · Score: 1

      Yeah, yeah. His second executive order will bring world peace and third one will abolish poverty.

  35. Risk mitigation by rabenja · · Score: 1
    • Ostensibly, TSA exists to mitigate risk of a terrorist attack.
    • Demonstrably, the risk is near zero.
    • TSA has more than one method to mitigate the risk (pat down, scanners)

    Clearly the TSA personnel in this case are ill trained and pedantic, if not stupid.

  36. Yeah but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know this is our daily opportunity to rage about the TSA and stuff, but..... WTF is wrong with this insulin pump thing? Those MMW scanners radiate a couple hundred micro-watts/cm2 at the beam focus. Really, really low power, in other words. Medical devices attached to ambulatory patients should not be that sensitive.

    1. Re:Yeah but by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      Those MMW scanners are supposed to radiate a couple hundred micro-watts/cm2 at the beam focus.

      FTFY.

  37. Opt Out - Everytime, here's how. by rullywowr · · Score: 1
    I patently refuse to go through any of those scanners. I fly pretty often and it varies from airport to airport. Typically it is one of the 3 following scenarios:

    1. Airport has mm wave scanners or backscatter scanners but is not using them. Metal detector only. (Best scenario)

    2. Airport has mm wave scanners or backscatter scanners and alternate between using them and a metal detector for every other person in line

    3. Airport has mm wave scanners or backscatter scanners and metal detectors and you get to CHOOSE what line you want to go through...(good scenario)

    Yes, i did get groped this past Friday by the TSA. I yelled "I OPT OUT" at the top of my lungs. Not too many people realize they can opt out (which only means you opt in for a groping). This "let me see your papers" has got to stop. Just let us passengers carry whatever we want and when someone is out of line they will get what is coming to them.

    The problem here is that the passenger didn't know their rights or they were forced against their will. With the former, its shame on them. With the latter, it's lawsuit time.

  38. dON'T fLY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like not everyone can be a pilot, not everyone can drive a forklift. Since you aren't unconscious flying by emergency life saving helicopter and being treated with respect in hopes of keeping you alive.
    Your only choice is to boycott flying until the cabal is removed, the monetary system is corrected, and the constitution restored. hint: obama and romney ain't going to fix it.
    Your business if you need to fly is toast, your health, and ability to survive, is more important now. Others depending on you business will dry up as well. Welcome to fascism, stop consenting to psychopaths, stop supporting, voting, and electing scum tied to foreign governments, UN organizations and large corporations. Don't vote for treasonous traitors. Sue the body scanner manufacturer, and airlines for damages.
    You think this is bad, this is only the beginning.
    Start fighting this legally now, before the fema prison camps are rolled out.
    Don't feel bad, the unconstitutional shit has killed my business too.
    The FDA is too busy with milk farmers, guitar makers, lemon aid stands, and bake sales, to worry about smart meters and naked body scanners.
    The FCC is appointed by the president, instead of the public. If you have a bad president, then it goes, you have a bad FCC who gives the wink to broadcasters who tow the president's agenda.

    Try to enjoy these times now, as things are about to get much worse, everything is exactly the way government wants it.

    1. Re:dON'T fLY by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      So you're saying:
      Don't visit friends and family across the country or out of the country. Don't take out-of-driving-range vacations. Don't interview for jobs across the country. Don't assume, like the rest of the civilized world, that flight is cost and time-effective.

      You're saying we should give up a major advancement of modern life that has become accepted as a fact of life. I don't think we can win the battle on this front.

    2. Re:dON'T fLY by element-o.p. · · Score: 2

      Yep, that's what he's saying. Neither you nor I have the clout to force the government into actually, you know, following the Constitution (what a concept...). But if the airlines start to feel the hit in their pocketbooks, you can bet they'll start lobbying for reasonable airport security.

      And if you think not flying is tough for you, try living without the airlines where I live: I can't even *get* to the rest of the country without driving through Canada for three to five days...oh yeah, that's one way.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  39. confrontation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you would have hoped that some citizen in line would have gotten wind of what was going on and confronted theTSA agent for it. This stupid shit the agent pulled would easily warrant violent confrontation with the agent depending on the response. No one should put up with this or let others be bullied into it.

  40. One word: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SSSUUUEEE.

  41. But its properly libertarian... by nweaver · · Score: 1

    Its unethical for the government to require that spammers not spam you once they get your email address. Welcome to the Paul Libertarian Randite Paradise...

    --
    Test your net with Netalyzr
  42. TSA Saved us from the Underware Bomber Part II by Art+Challenor · · Score: 1

    See, they saved us from latest Underware bomber, we should all be happy that they're keeping us safe!

    Oh, wait, what? That was just old fashioned intelligence and police work and a hyped non-threat?

    Well no matter, we must need better more intrusive scanners then they'll be able to save us next time!

    1. Re:TSA Saved us from the Underware Bomber Part II by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Wan't a non threat. Yes, good ol' fashion intelligence work s wins, again.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  43. Disconnect the pump? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Something isn't adding up here. The tube on insulin pumps can be disconnected, she could have easily taken her pump off and not destroyed it.

  44. Yes by geekoid · · Score: 1

    over site would help because they wouldn't be allowed.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  45. ALWAYS TAKE THE PAT DOWN! by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

    Otherwise them TSA screamer will bust your insolent pump!

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  46. and under the mitt romney health care plan SOL by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    and under the mitt romney health care plan you may SOL and have to buy a new one at full cost + maybe end up on a pre existing condition list.

  47. Slashdot has gone crazy... by OverkillTASF · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If someone posted a story where someone claimed that their grandmother's pacemaker stopped working because the LHC was turned on, it would get voted down as unsupported circumstantial and anecdotal evidence. Most Slashdotters probably also laugh at people who are religious, even those who are convinced they witnessed a miracle from God at some point in their life. Come on guys. This is 99% a case of seeing what you want to see.

    1. Re:Slashdot has gone crazy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone posted a story where someone claimed that their grandmother's pacemaker stopped working because the LHC was turned on, it would get voted down as unsupported circumstantial and anecdotal evidence. Most Slashdotters probably also laugh at people who are religious, even those who are convinced they witnessed a miracle from God at some point in their life. Come on guys. This is 99% a case of seeing what you want to see.

      Something to remember next time we force grandma through the LHC.

    2. Re:Slashdot has gone crazy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that if the device fails seconds after passing through the scanner, and the scanner is known to emit high frequency RF energy that will induce voltages in the mesh of a circuit...it is reasonable to assume the scanner was at fault until proven otherwise.

      It isn't like this would be difficult to test, either.

    3. Re:Slashdot has gone crazy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Generally speaking, grandmothers are barred from crossing the LHC beamline. Otherwise you might, might have a point.

    4. Re:Slashdot has gone crazy... by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      If someone posted a story where someone claimed that their grandmother's pacemaker stopped working because the LHC was turned on, it would get voted down as unsupported circumstantial and anecdotal evidence.

      This is a strawman. In your LHC example there's no conceivable way except by the basest twisting of all laws of physics that it's even remotely feasible that the LHC could even possibly cause something like that.

      In the instant case, we have a device emitting a high energy electromagnetic pulse that is said to break something...which is sensitive to high energy electromagnetic pulses. Or to take it to the ridiculous extreme:

      That's like saying he died because we doused him in gasoline and threw a match on him. He probably just spontaneously combusted! This is just 99% seeing what you want to see.

  48. Murder in the interest of public safety... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Being an insulin dependant diabetic, they could have easily killd her. It could have failed the other way and dumped several days of insulin into her at once. I guess once she passes out, they would have done a body cavity search before calling the paramedics.

    1. Re:Murder in the interest of public safety... by shentino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      She should sue the fuck out of them for starters.

      Passing her machine through the scanner EVEN AFTER a doctor's note said otherwise is grossly negligent or reckless or worse.

    2. Re:Murder in the interest of public safety... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When someone says one party should sue another I almost always say this is an overreaction (a grossly inefficient solution at best). However, this is one of the few cases where a lawsuit makes sense. Sure, it will result in some government funds being funnled into the hands of a single citizen and some lawyers are going to become richer but the precedent is certainly worth something and it would become yet another piece of evidence against the whole idea of the TSA, another indication of the publics almost universal hatred of this system.

      If America were a democracy then I'm sure that the TSA would never have come into being.

    3. Re:Murder in the interest of public safety... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't sue them, they are the government. You need it's permission to sue it. And why would they want you to no matter how egregious the stupidity of the people doing the scanning.

       

    4. Re:Murder in the interest of public safety... by shentino · · Score: 2

      Federal Tort Claims act allows lawsuits for tortious actions of federal employees.

    5. Re:Murder in the interest of public safety... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Personally I think charges of criminal negligence should be laid whether suing happens or not, but the TSA seems to be almost a law free zone.

    6. Re:Murder in the interest of public safety... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an insulin dependent diabetic, no they couldn't have. Going into DKa would take more than a day unless she went to Hershey World after the plane. And dumping insluin is a nasty, but implausable scenario. It would take took long yo pump the insluin in yo go without being noticed. Still Sue Tue fuxkers

    7. Re:Murder in the interest of public safety... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She should sue the fuck out of them for starters.

      Passing her machine through the scanner EVEN AFTER a doctor's note said otherwise is grossly negligent or reckless or worse.

      I'm sure they have immunity from civil suit; so sue away, you won't get past the first Motion To Dismiss...

      CAPTCHA: Trapper

    8. Re:Murder in the interest of public safety... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have been livid if they caused my pump to break down. They put her in real danger! I'd be suing their butts! Makes me not want to fly!

    9. Re:Murder in the interest of public safety... by Solandri · · Score: 2

      This is nothing new. Most of the airport security personnel I've met have been courteous, but there are a few who seem to be there for the power trip. They will insist that they are right even when it's obvious they're wrong and/or the law is on your side..

      In the late 1990s during a transfer in London, I had to be screened again (this was shortly after some terrorists had tried to slip aboard some bombs by tweaking luggage tags to get them aboard planes they weren't boarding). I used an HP LX200 as my PDA, and I knew its static memory didn't react well to x-rays. It had been corrupted enough to require a reboot with data loss the first time I sent it through an x-ray machine, so I always put it into a separate tray and requested a hand inspection. I requested a hand inspection as usual, and according to the security agent apparently they don't do those in the U.K. I argued with him briefly, explaining that I knew passing it through the x-ray machine could wipe its memory. He insisted that I had to put it through if I wanted to board my flight, at which point I relented. It went through, and the memory got corrupted as expected.

      Prior to that, it was usually about film. Anyone who's had a high school science class knows x-rays will expose film. Apparently, many airport security agents never took a high school science course. By law in the U.S., you're allowed to request film be hand-inspected. But sift through the archives of any of the older (film) photography forums, and you'll find countless horror stories about airport security insisting on sending the film through the x-ray machine. The BBC and David Attenborough lost 5 weeks of film shot in Papua New Guinea for the Life of Birds series that way.

    10. Re:Murder in the interest of public safety... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, she wouldnt have died. The pump is programmed to not allow more than a certain amount in any given time for just this reason.

    11. Re:Murder in the interest of public safety... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who verified the note was actually from a doctor, eh?

    12. Re:Murder in the interest of public safety... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is certainly true, however I don't see a mention in the article of the DA pressing charges for such negligence.

    13. Re:Murder in the interest of public safety... by shentino · · Score: 1

      That's because negligence is usually a CIVIL matter.

    14. Re:Murder in the interest of public safety... by Meski · · Score: 1

      If only they made insulin pumps to be resistant to this, the way they make planes resistant to mobile phones. Wait, you mean they don't make planes resistant? Damn!

  49. Another day, another TSA story by wiedzmin · · Score: 2

    Just opt out. Let them fondle your junk. It's not that big of a deal really, you let your doctor do it and you might actually have to look him in the eye, many times, after it. The TSA agent you will probably never see again... If everyone opts out, the scanners will go away.

    --
    Bow before me, for I am root.
    1. Re:Another day, another TSA story by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Yes, but I *know* my doctor, and if he begins to act in a way that I think is unreasonable, I can tell him to kindly screw off without getting threatened with an $11K fine. None of those conditions apply to the TSA.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    2. Re:Another day, another TSA story by wiedzmin · · Score: 1

      What can the TSA agent possibly do to you, during a public "pat down" procedure, that you might feel would be so outrageous? It's not like he's going to ask you to turn and cough, or check your prostate...

      --
      Bow before me, for I am root.
    3. Re:Another day, another TSA story by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Explain to me why any government employee has the right to touch anyone's genitals, breast or buttocks without at least having probably cause that contraband might be hidden there? Suppose I were to walk up to a stranger on the street and give them a "public pat down." Would that, in itself, not be outrageous? I would expect to either get slapped or arrested for sexual assault (and rightly so). Yet we submit to that in order to get on an airplane? Considering how many TSO's have been arrested for sexual assault, rape, running prostitution rings or possession of kiddie porn on their off-time (Google it; the information isn't hard to find), I quite frankly am adamant that none of those pervs will touch me or my family. If you're cool with a minimum-wage Barney Fife with no pre-employment background checking running his or her hands all over you and your family, then that's your choice. But I'm not, and I deeply resent being barred from flying because I refuse to be sexually assaulted as a precondition to boarding an airliner.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    4. Re:Another day, another TSA story by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Dang it...sed "s/probably cause/probable cause/"

      I even previewed first, and still didn't catch it until I had already submitted the comment.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    5. Re:Another day, another TSA story by wiedzmin · · Score: 1

      That's a whole different issue... one that needs to be taken up by the citizens of the "land of the free" with their respective government. And if chose not to fly - that's your right too (I guess, if you can call that a right). I don't have that option and if I had to chose between potentially cancer-causing radiation and a little fondling, well - I don't see any documented cases where someone died from disgust-related complications.

      --
      Bow before me, for I am root.
  50. Need to take those scanners back by SlippyToad · · Score: 2

    And jam them, every one of them, forcefully up Michael Chertoff's ASS.

    --
    One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
  51. Opt-out policy? by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

    I thought the passenger has a right to opt out of the scanners. They let me take the pat-down, the only time I've flown since they were installed. Can't say I liked it but it is better than having them expose me to radiation whose effects on the human body have not been independently studied.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  52. Forced her? by dindi · · Score: 1

    I am confused. AFAIK you can deny passing through the machine and opt to go through a pat-down and a metal detector. I passed through the Salt Lake City airport with a foreign passport and a bag full of electronics choosing the metal detector lane when both lanes were empty (late flight). Interestingly they were doing a pat-down on a lady who was from the states and passed through the microwave oven already while no one cared about the contents of my backpack even though I am a foreigner with a funky accent.

    So how can you force someone into the machine when it was stated clearly that you have the right to opt out. I always opt out as I completely refuse to pass it. And no, I do not own a microwave oven and I turn all wireless off for night and minimize use during the day (phones, machines, APs). I regularly check my spaces with an EMF detector tool (50-60Hz) for EM fields where I sit (office, home office, living room) and where I sleep (well, mostly the bedroom).....

    1. Re:Forced her? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      I regularly check my spaces with an EMF detector tool (50-60Hz) for EM fields where I sit (office, home office, living room) and where I sleep (well, mostly the bedroom).....

      Wow, dude.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    2. Re:Forced her? by matazar · · Score: 1

      COERCED.

      The article used the wrong word. She's 16, what the hell do you expect?

      Also, what do your over paranoid habits have to do with anything?

    3. Re:Forced her? by dindi · · Score: 1

      I don't expect anything. When I was 16 I would have probably gotten into trouble with these people if they forced me to do anything I have the right to refuse.

      My habits are not paranoid. They are careful. The TSA's cooker is not safe. It wasn't tested for short- and long term exposure health effects.

      Wi-Fi and cell phones also lack sufficient study on the developing brain (or the adult for that matter) so for safety's sake and for being a good citizen of the planet I turn them off when they are not used. Why have 4-5 APs on when everyone is sleeping at the house and what needs to run is wired.

      Long term EMF exposure is responsible for cancer cases. Scanning for strong fields is wise, not paranoids. I work with computers 10-12 hours a day, many hours in Wi-Fi, so it is normal to try to minimize other radiation.

      Makes sense now?

    4. Re:Forced her? by dindi · · Score: 1

      Yep. On top of that I drive every Saturday to the organic market where I buy food for the week. I do not drink from plastic bottles and I am strict vegan, 90% raw.

      Haven't seen a doctor for 20 years (except when I blew my eardrum, not even a bike crash with fractured ribs and dislocated this-and-that - enduro is rough)....

      Wow or not, I get enough EMF exposure at work from Wifi, Bluetooth, GSM and AC transformators for computers and gadgets. Why have them on when you sleep and don't need them. Less $$ on juice too.

  53. Why Do We Keep Talking About The TSA In Any by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    context other than to completely abolish them immediately? Thick locking cockpit doors made the TSA obsolete. There are zero positive stories about the TSA in their entire history. They are far worse than useless because they cannot be ignored. The agency needs to be eliminated.

  54. selective quoting is fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Savannah then showed agents a doctor's note explaining that the sensitive insulin pump should not go through the body scanner. She says she was told to go through it anyway."

    You may recognize that from TFA, it's the sentence that shows up right before the one you quote. They told her to go through it after she showed them a warning from her doctor that she should not go through it; it is safe to assume that she wanted to follow her doctor's advice and not go through the machine. They told her to anyway. In other words, they forced her to go through it.

    1. Re:selective quoting is fun by shentino · · Score: 1

      If refusing to be groped or searched means you aren't allowed to board the plane, you are not complying of your own free will. You are being placed under duress by having your non refundable plane fare held hostage.

  55. Opt out, every flight by MattW · · Score: 1

    The TSA would not be able to keep the scanners in service if every person opted out every time. (FWIW, I've passed through SLC several times, and the agents have always been respectful, polite, and not particularly aggressive with my crotch region. That said, for the sake of all of our privacy and that of our children, please opt out every time. They will HAVE to change.)

    1. Re:Opt out, every flight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard a guy making sounds like he liked being touched; obviously, on purpose to embarrass the TSA agent.

  56. This reminds me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of a catchy little ditty I heard once.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7AWw7t5zj0

  57. Wait--wasn't the pat-down useless anyway? by wile_e_wonka · · Score: 3

    The article says:

    She says TSA agents then made the situation worse when they didn't know what to do about her juice and insulin. "She said, because we don't have the machines to scan the juice to make sure this is not an explosive we do have to do a full body pat down and search your through your bags."

    So, here is what I don't understand: how did the pat-down help the TSA determine that the juice and insulin were not actually explosives?

    Well, now we've shown terrorists how to get explosives on a plane: pretend to be diabetic and bring your explosives in juice boxes and bags marked "insulin." Combine "juice" with "insulin" and get on the 5:00 news.

  58. TSA is not ALLOWED to exercise common sense by CheckeredFlag · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's not that they don't have common sense (I'm not saying they do), but they're not ALLOWED to exercise common sense. There is so much hubbub about patdowns of 90 year old grandmothers and 3 year old toddlers, but they're instructed to treat everyone equally. Otherwise, it would be profiling.

    We need to learn from the Israelis that have the best security, but they do lots of common sense profiling.

    1. Re:TSA is not ALLOWED to exercise common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they do lots of common sense profiling.

      It seems that whenever most people say "profiling" they mean "looks like a sandnigger". Never mind the underwear bomber getting a free pass for being black or the shoe bomber getting a free pass for being a white brit, "keep your hands off me because I don't look like a terrorist!"

      BTW, El Al has all passengers arrive hours early so that they can be individually interviewed and their belongings pawed over. Even the grannies.

    2. Re:TSA is not ALLOWED to exercise common sense by ktappe · · Score: 1

      It's not that they don't have common sense (I'm not saying they do), but they're not ALLOWED to exercise common sense. There is so much hubbub about patdowns of 90 year old grandmothers and 3 year old toddlers, but they're instructed to treat everyone equally. Otherwise, it would be profiling.

      Sorry, no. They absolutely are allowed to read a doctor's note and not put the girl through the scanner.

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
  59. Losing business by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

    For corporations to lose business over invasive treatment would require airline passengers to give a damn, in a financially significant sense. Although I have greatly curtailed my air travel since the naked scanners were rolled out (I've only flown once in the past 3 years and that was a family emergency) the flying public, as far as I can tell, is more upset about baggage fees than they are about the government exposing them to ionizing radiation.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    1. Re:Losing business by boxxertrumps · · Score: 2

      So, as a member of the "flying public", you have reduced your expenditure towards that form of travel because of the scanners, and you are simultaneously claiming that the "flying public" doesn't care about scanners?

      What?

    2. Re:Losing business by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A few people posting on Slashdot != "the public" anything. People here tend to care greatly about privacy issues, "the public" not so much as a whole. Slashdot is not a good cross-section representation of "the public".

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    3. Re:Losing business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's also no alternatives for people to choose from. The alternatives are: don't fly, or accept the TSA's restrictions.

      If, say, Southwest used Israeli contractors and implemented a system like El Al does, while United used only invasive patdowns, and American used only ionizing radiation emitting body scanners... do you think that the existence of alternatives might encourage people to vote with their dollars for the one they preferred?

      I sure would. And that's the point: if there were options, airlines could advertise them as competitive advantages. Instead of saying, "Doesn't matter which airline you take, you're gonna get groped or irradiated either way," they could say, "Here at Southwest, we respect our passengers and their security, which is why we've implemented best practices from the most secure operations around the world for ensuring the safety and security of our passengers and flight crew. Instead of the theater of long lines, pat down body searches, and harmful radiation, our security systems rely on best practices that have been proven effective time and again, and also allow our passengers to fly in comfort and safety." Boom, sold - I'll take 2 tickets to LA, please.

    4. Re:Losing business by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You have to have a choice. When the airlines pool resources to a single screening line that's the same for all, then there's no choice, thus the market forces *can't* work. But if the airlines all had their own lines, then you could choose lines. I choose carriers based on things like meals, movies, and such, so I could add "lines" to that list. But without choice (fly to Alaska or drive to Alaska isn't a choice), the market will not be able to fix itself. It doesn't matter whether the passengers give a damn, the have no choice, so it doesn't matter. Let the people vote with their feet, and there will be a voice made clear. Open up all terminals again and perform scanning at the gates by airline personnel and the ones that use the scanners will be avoided, the "security" they add isn't worth the cost.

    5. Re:Losing business by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Logic FAIL.

      SirGarlon, or myself for that matter, is but a tiny subset of "the flying public." Just as people on /. do not all hold the same opinions on all topics, yet nevertheless comprise a group known as "/. users" so can SirGarlon and I have opinions that others in the group known as "the flying public" do not share. To wit, most of them seem to value a vacation by air more than they value liberty.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  60. Republicans will be outraged, respond quickly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How can a teen afford a $10k insulin pump when they should clearly have to depend on cheaper means.

    Damn liberals.

  61. She wants TSA screeners to have more training. by HermDog · · Score: 1

    Hell, it'd be nice if TSA screeners had some training.

    --
    JADBP
  62. Re:Is she stupid as well? by jo_ham · · Score: 1

    I think this image is apt as a response to your comment (I know, I know, memes, we hate them).

    http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/200/420/BRTky.jpg?1321408042

  63. Facism has a new face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And it's called America. The land of instigated fear.

  64. taking it a step further by schlachter · · Score: 1

    ...more often...the fears of the many...outweigh the needs of almost everyone else.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
  65. Ethical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when are politicians ethical?

  66. Everything is in this difference by DrYak · · Score: 2

    but worded slightly different.

    You can bet that massive government backdoor will be hidden in those slight differences.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  67. Needs to be reported to the FDA by Animats · · Score: 1

    If this is real, the insulin pump is seriously defective. The FDA needs to be notified and there needs to be a recall. There are lots of little microwave sources around. Some automatic door openers have a millimeter Doppler radar in them. Speed signs have centimeter-band radars. Near an airport, you're likely to be hit by radar beams from the airport's radars. Cell phones and WiFi devices get near the millimeter range. None of these things damage each other or bother non-radio electronics.

    If an insulin pump can be permanently damaged by anything short of an EMP attack, it's defective by design.

  68. you will get this and more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until you accept what 9/11 was really all about and choose to never face it this will happen and much worse.

  69. Ban the TSA! by wonderboss · · Score: 1
    --
    more cowbell
  70. Re:The most amazing part of the story: - I Call BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A friends daughter has an Insulin pump. It has a lifetime warranty. She's at least a little nuts, drinks soda to piss off her parents, breaks the pump on purpose.

    No insulin pumps in the US have LIFETIME WARRANTIES.

    That is complete and utter bollocks. In fact, most have 5 year expiration built into them.

    Also, I am going to get a warranty claim if I drop it from a second story window?

    Of course not.

    Jeff ... not signed in ... person with Type 1 Insulin Dependant Diabetes ... Pump wearer for 12 plus years (on third pump brand)

  71. Really? Was she that unprepared? by dowens81625 · · Score: 0

    This girl not only does an injustice to herself but also to type 1 diabetics everywhere. "The type one diabetic says TSA agents were abrupt, rude and were responsible for breaking her $10,000 insulin pump. A pump she has to have to survive." - No one forced her to fly with the pump, for short trips she could go back to shots and leave the device at home. I do this when I go camping, swimming, most things out doors. - Empty the Reservoir and pack it your carry on. She could have suspended her basal for a couple hours, for as short of a flight as it is from Utah to Colorado (Those states are touching) Salt Lake City to Denver can be driven in under 7 hours. - Type 1 Diabetics survived for decades before we had gizmos like Insulin Pumps, and CGMs (Continual Glucose Monitors) To say she has to have it to survive is a flat out lie. - It may assist her in controlling her blood sugar, much the same as someone who checks their blood sugar with a Glucose meter, and injects insulin with a syringe. - No Diabetic wears their pump 24/7/365 - It has a small injection site that has to be changed regularly in any case to prevent infection. - Just deal with it - Take it off when they ask - empty the reservoir if they want - bring extra supplies (should be doing this anyway) remove it before you hit security and refill from a seal prescription bottle after your through. Her attitude of (its all someone else's fault) is just immature grow up and take care of your own things. - Signed - A Type 1 Diabetic that is on an insulin pump and has flown dozens of times with it. - Not a big deal -

    1. Re:Really? Was she that unprepared? by SlippyToad · · Score: 1

      No one forced her to fly with the pump,

      Jesus. Let's just breathlessly fellate our Security State overlords. "Look at me! I'll gladly disrupt my medical treatments so that ignorant dumfucks can probe my body for vague threats."

      Of course, no one forces me to fly with my glasses on either, and i can do without them for short distances, but something you seem to be missing from your blame-the-victim asshole rant: SHE was just traveling. Is it now a huge deal to want to be treated with decency when you travel???

      Don't answer me. I don't know if I can handle watching you suck cock for another 500 words. Fucking disgusting.

      --
      One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
  72. Not that easy by DrYak · · Score: 3, Informative

    I believe insulin pumps are worn externally and not surgically inserted

    Yes, indeed. You need to have physical access to the device to change the insuline supply.

    and it should be a very small matter to take one off to get through a screening

    it's not trivial to temporarily remove one and put it back. As the device is indeed external and the insuline has to be delivered in the blood flow, you might guess that there are sterile needls involved and similar. not something that is easy to improvise in a security line. also, between shutdown and restart of the device once re-attached, there's also risk of manipulation errors.

    So either:
    - the doctor make sure the patient is properly educated and able to remove / re-attach the device (she's 16, but even younger kids can have Type 1 diabetes, and might not be able to do the whole procedure without parents supervision).
    - the doctor provides all the necessary equipment to remove and re-inject the needle (bio-hasard box for used sharp object where to discard previous needle, sterile swipes, new steril needles, steril bandages, etc.)
    - the doctor provides all the necessary documentation so the patient get proprer clearance to carry around the equipement past the security check, including the pointy needles.

    Or:
    - the doctors just write a letter saying that it's just better to "opt out" of the scanner (as she has the right to do any way).

    or even for the entire flight.

    Getting disconnected from the pump for prolonged periods of time without proper medical supervision isn't what's best for the patient's health, as the girl explains hefself in the video.

    Removing the pump and relying on syringes for insuline, basically amount to a switch of medication, including an overlap period where the body still cointains leftovers from the previous type of therapy and new drugs are injected (or at least a completely different new therapy plan has to be followed). Such switches might require medical supervision.

    It should be possible to design a pump whose on-baord computer is able to calculate and print out recommandations how to continue from that point on with a classical syringe). But it's just much more easy to recommand "opting out".

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Not that easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it is quite easy to remove, the part that goes in your body, often called a "site" detaches VERY easily from the tubing coming from the pump. Usually it detaches via simple clip, the site stays attached to you.

      Most pumps although claiming to be waterproof, are really not so you are advised to take it off in the shower, or when swimming. Since the fast acting insulin used in pumps has a 2hr life time a person can have the pump detached for that long without trouble, unless they eat with it off.

      Someone who wears a pump usually has to detach it atleast once during the day, makes getting dressed much easier, plus the whole shower thing.

    2. Re:Not that easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I mistaken.... but I thought going through the scanners was optional. You can simply request that you have a private screening. Maybe I'm wrong but I seem to remember seeing the signs that say that at the security checkpoint....

    3. Re:Not that easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you might have been correct in the early 90s, but modern insulin pumps typically use infusion sets with easy disconnect/reconnect fittings. Six or seven years ago, I used only an alcohol swab before reconnecting, but not that is not even necessary anymore:
      http://www.medtronicdiabetes.net/products/infusionsets

      I always disconnect my insulin pump before going through the security screening and put it in my carry-on bag. I started doing this before the full-body scanners were in use because I got tired of trying to explain to goons with poor English skills what the insulin pump was if it set off the metal detector. The X-Rays have never harmed the pump, and I assume they think it is a pager or MP3 player or something, as no one has ever asked about it.

  73. Re:forced? OPT OUT by sjames · · Score: 1

    Because every teen looks forward to uttering the words "Mom, Dad, I've been arrested" into a scratchy payphone that may or may not be covered in herpes.

  74. Rather good outcome by DrYak · · Score: 2

    In fact, it's quite an achievement that the device was able to fail safely upon undergoing a stress from something that even didn't exist at the time the device was designed.

    FTA: The device just stopped working.

    Whereas, the pump could have gone beserk, and suddenly decide to dump the whole insuline reserve into the girl's blood stream and cause an insuline shock.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Rather good outcome by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      Kind of makes you wonder if something like that actually happened, if the TSA would even have to worry about the repercussions. I'm sure it would be spun that the continued efforts to protect us from terrorism is worth the life of the occasional diabetic child.

    2. Re:Rather good outcome by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Stopped working permanently, FRIED!

      Pacemakers when subjected to interference bad enough to affect them shutdown, then work again afterwards, they don't fry. (*)

      Someone might pass out, but wouldn't die or suffer lasting harm as long as the interference went away.

      (*) I'm excluding things like MRI machines, those produce extreme fields. Enough to make things fly through the air!

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    3. Re:Rather good outcome by Meski · · Score: 1

      Well, they don't dump it direct to bloodstream, but subcutaneously. It would still mean trouble, but you could likely counteract it in time. Glucose tabs + glucagen pen. (I am not a doctor, but am diabetes 2, insulin dependent)

      Reading about pumps, they often communicate with meter wirelessly. Wonder what the airlines say about that?

  75. Will never happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sending them home will increase unemployment, therefore they will be kept working.

    I suggest a compromise. We employ them to screen Congress members and lobbyists.

    1. Re:Will never happen by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      I first read that as "to screw Congress members and lobbyists" and got really excited for a second.

  76. Untrue and senastionalistic by jklovanc · · Score: 1

    That is an assumption as there is no evidence to support it. There are many manufacturers of mm wave scanners and these manufacturers definitely have access to the scanners. According to this site the following list can buy MMW scanners; "airports, courthouses, correctional institutions, other government and commercial facilities". I am sure that a medical device manufacturer would fall under "commercial facilities".

  77. Re:Is she stupid as well? by Brian+Feldman · · Score: 1

    Nice fantasy, but reality requires waiting for enough fascists to die and enough young people to be willing to revolt before any real change will occur in the US.

    --
    Brian Fundakowski Feldman
  78. My Experiences as a Diabetic with Insulin Pump by gbobeck · · Score: 1

    I'm a type 1 diabetic with an insulin pump and have had few issues with the TSA. When I go through the TSA "security" checkpoints, I immediately notify the screener that I have an insulin pump and related supplies and that I can not remove my pump. If told to go through the weenie-vision scanners, I refuse due to medical reasons. Generally this is not a problem, however in the rare instance where the TSA representative pushes back, I demand that they call a supervisor.

    For all the years I have flown, I only had an issue with a TSA representative once, and that was at the Fort Lauderdale airport. I stuck to the script above, and demanded to see a supervisor. Needless to say, the agent was ordered to go off duty.

    With that said, Savannah should have RTFM better. While I do not know what brand of insulin pump she uses, my pump manufacturer has a card on the first page of the owners manual which is mean to be cut out and carried. On it, it states the following

    "Medtronic has conducted official testing on the effects of the full body scanners at airports with Medtronic medical devices. Some of the new scanners may include x-ray. To avoid removing your devices, you may request an alternative screening process. If you choose to go through a full body scanner, you must remove your insulin pump and CGM (sensor and transmitter). Do not send your devices through the x-ray machine as an alternative."

    A pdf of that card may be found at http://www.medtronicdiabetes.net/sfc/servlet.shepherd/version/download/068C0000000IY43

    The manufacture even goes as far as having ample documentation on their website. See the following:

    Medtronic Airport "security" guidelines: http://www.medtronicdiabetes.net/lifestyle/travel/tipsonflyingandairportsecurityguidelines

    Medtronic Equipment Interference chart: http://www.medtronicdiabetes.net/lifestyle/equipmentinterference

    --
    Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
  79. Re:forced? OPT OUT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do not get arrested, Do not act unruly. It puts you in a defensive position when they cuff you. The TSA are not police they should not detain you. Ask for a real police officer. If they insist on detaining you ask everyone around you to contact an airport or local police officer immediately. Real police officers want to get rid of these tards as much as you do. Explain the situation calmly even if being detained against your will.

  80. Spend a few minutes doing some research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My wife is a Type 1 diabetic and has a very similar insulin pump. No matter if the girl in the story was a Type 1 diabetic or not she could detach the pump for the 30 seconds it takes to go through the body scanner and it would have been completely fine. When we go to the airport my wife detaches he pump and puts it though the x-ray scanner with the rest of her personal belongings. All of the comments above about her needing the pump attached every second of every day clearly do not understand diabetes or how the pump actually works.

    I think the body scanners are a bad idea but this was not a near death experience. ANYONE who is using an insulin pump should also be traveling with needles, extra insulin and extra pump supplies because you never know when you are going to need them. On a camping trip last year my wife's insulin pump died and we continued with the rest of our weekend trip and she just used needles to inject herself with insulin as she needed it the same as she would have told the pump to give her the insulin. The pump is an improvement in insulin delivery but it is NOT mandatory for anyone.

    I still say get rid of the body scanners but please do not use this as a reason because any educated person will understand that is is not a problem for 99% of diabetics in the world.

    My 2 cents.

  81. High Fructose Corn Syrup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much do you want to bet this kid ended up with this condition from eating American food laden with HFCS and white flour and drinking soda?

    1. Re:High Fructose Corn Syrup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How much do you want to bet this kid ended up with this condition from eating American food laden with HFCS and white flour and drinking soda?

      How much do you want to bet you're a fucking retard who can't be bothered to read and assumes that anytime the government fucks someone's life up it's because they "deserved it" for something they did.

      She's Type I, loser. Now fuck off and go play in a freeway.

  82. TSA are idiots but so is the teen by SilverJets · · Score: 0

    Doctor's note says not to take the pump through the full body scanner. Doctor's note about a medical device trumps college drop-out TSA agent. Teen should have just said, "I have an insulin pump. I always get a pat down" and left it at that. Obviously if you ask a question giving the TSA agent a choice, they are going to take the path-of-minimal-work-for-them and push you through the scanner.

  83. Who paid for replacment? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    The TSA damned well better have paid for the broken device.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  84. Mirror Suit by MountainLogic · · Score: 1

    I guess Chris Issac will not be flying in his Mirror Suit anytime soon.

  85. abolish security by johnwerneken · · Score: 1

    I think we ought to abolish security except in its military manifestation. the rest does no good and much harm.

    1. Re:abolish security by geekoid · · Score: 1

      not true at all.

      http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Government_Role/security/POL18.htm

      Security has helped a lot. Overall. I'm not talking about some of the nonsense happening now.

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

      This security did not do any harm. The blame should almost be 100% on the girl in the article. She should have just opted for the manual pat-down or just put her pump with the rest of her personal belongings through the regular x-ray. She is diabetic and basically an adult. She should have known better since her doctor told her not to take it through the body scanner. Every day thousands of Type 1 Diabetics with insulin pumps go through security in the US and Canada with the body scanners and no-one else has this issue. If she was younger and traveling alone and they "made" her go through the body scanner the TSA could be blamed but she is basically an adult and should have known better

  86. How many ounces of insulin by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    If it was more than 4 ounces, than she should have thrown her $10k machine in the trash like a responsible citizen and then bought another one inside security (where it would probably cost $50k) or even on the plane (where it would cost $100k).
    God help us if the TSA ever gets enough education to find out that human beings are 75% water and figure out how many ounces that works out to.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  87. Effectiveness by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 3, Informative

    >ADMITTED TO NOT WORK

    Documentation:
    Ben Wallace, a former employee of one of the company's manufacturing the scanner technology, announced on BBC Radio 4's Today programme that "...in all the testing that we undertook, it was unlikely that it (the airport scanner) would have picked up the current explosive devices being used by al-Qaeda" and that "... it wasn't very good and it wasn't that easy to detect liquids and plastics unless they were very solid plastics (Airport, 2010)."

  88. Re:Is she stupid as well? by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

    You know, as adults, we should have already fixed this god damned problem with our government - not expect our children to have to rise up against the man for something as simple and common place as a plane flight.

    ^^THIS!!!^^

    If you really want to "think of the children!" then maybe it's time to start trying to create a world that we can be proud of instead of taking the path of least resistance all the time.

    --
    MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  89. TSA Missed Something by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

    I recently came home from Disney World. After we got back, I noticed something on the bottom of my shoe. Apparently, there was a Disney pin that had been on the ground at some point. I stepped on it, it got lodged in my shoe, and came with me all the way home. A metal pin with a sharp spike in it. In the bottom of my shoe. That went through the TSA x-ray machine. They didn't seem to think there was anything wrong with an oddly shaped piece of metal stuck in my shoe?

    Granted, I don't think the pin is a dangerous object, but this should have at least required a "Sir, what's this on your shoe?" question or a "We just need to examine your shoes for a second."

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    1. Re:TSA Missed Something by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      the naked scanners have always been about making rapiscan, the company that makes them, a lot of money. Actual security does not appear to be a goal of the tsa.

    2. Re:TSA Missed Something by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      These weren't even the Rapiscan scanners (though my in-laws went through those). I took my shoes off and they (along with the pin underneath) passed through the X-Ray machine with my laptop, backpack, etc. If they didn't notice a chunk of metal on the bottom of my shoes, what else aren't they noticing?

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  90. Good God man, honor system? No need. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    After 9-11, do you really think the passengers of any plane is going to allow any idiot to hijack a plane ever again? You'll have grandmothers on oxygen rushing them before they ever get near the door to the cockpit.

    As for bombs, bombs [that actually work in a manner that would provide a large enough explosion] would be easily visible on ordinary x-ray machines like those we sent our shit through all the time before 9-11.

    Patting down children, harassing insulin dependent teenagers and scaring the shit out of old ladies is just theater. Terrible terrible theater.

  91. Yank the pump's certification NOW! (FDA/FCC) by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1, Interesting

    For the insulin pump to not only malfunction, but to be damaged to the point of needing the be replaced, means it should NOT be certified by the FDA, its certification needs to be revoked immediately and recalled.

    That is like the dark days where people with pacemakers had to avoid microwaves.

    This time it was a TSA scanner, the next time it could be a cell tower, power transformer box (there are a lot of them at street level in many cities), cell phone, walkie talkie, CB, aviation radio, store anti-theft system, garage door opener, home security system, car key fob or anything RF based.

    Also, FCC rules require, and I quote "This device complies with part 15 of the FCC rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) this device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation. "

    #2 means it can't freaking FRY from an RF source!

    So it is in violation of FDA and FCC rules and not just in a technical way, it became busted, and it is a necessary medical device.

    I hope it just turned off and wouldn't turn on or something similar, I hope it didn't decide to pump 45 days dose like in the hacker demonstration or silently underdose, overdose or something else crazy like that.

    --
    Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    1. Re:Yank the pump's certification NOW! (FDA/FCC) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This device is not a part 15 device.

      Besides, I can build a device for frying just about anything.

    2. Re:Yank the pump's certification NOW! (FDA/FCC) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An insulin pump is NOT a necessary medical device. Please understand what you are talking about before you talk.

    3. Re:Yank the pump's certification NOW! (FDA/FCC) by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 2

      Every electronic will fry from a large enough EM source. Assuming those rules are sane, it includes a power level the device should be able to handle. These scanners are not monitored by the FCC. This means they can output more than that power level.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    4. Re:Yank the pump's certification NOW! (FDA/FCC) by thej1nx · · Score: 1

      Better question : Why is TSA allowed to operate machines giving off so much radiation, that fries up *even* FDA certified devices?

    5. Re:Yank the pump's certification NOW! (FDA/FCC) by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      Better question : Why is TSA allowed to operate machines giving off so much radiation, that fries up *even* FDA certified devices?

      "because they never asked anyone and once a guy tried to go to washington to ask why but couldn't get on the plane..."

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  92. rly.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    did they literally 'force' her through the body scanner. she should have refused and not flown. flying is not a constitutional right.

    1. Re:rly.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Several problems. First, she's 16 years old. At that age, when someone in a position of authority asks you to do something, you don't question it. Secondly, she did tell them that she normally gets patted down, indicating that is her preference. Third, while you can opt-out of the nudie x-ray machine (providing you are aware of that right), if you attempt to refuse both the nudie x-ray and the sexual groping by deciding not to take the flight at all, you can be arrested, interrogated and sued.

      So yeah, they did basically take advantage of her youthful naivete and forced her through the nudie x-ray pedophilia box via intimidation.

  93. More "training" won't cut it by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    They need their stupid asses fired, the sooner the better. In fact fire the whole Department of Homeland Security.

    Let the airlines provide security. It's in their financial interest to keep their customers safe and flying. All DHS worries about is their next budget request.

    Freedom means taking some risks. Absolute safety is not compatible with freedom whatsoever.

  94. The FCC Doesn't Have Jurisdiction by Analog+Guru · · Score: 1

    The FCC only has jurisdiction over non-federal-governmental users of the RF spectrum. Federal agencies are regulated by the National Telecommunications and Information Agency. The NTIA is a part of the Department of Commerce.

  95. TSA everywhere by 7-Vodka · · Score: 1
    You do realize that lots of places are starting to allow TSA at bus stations, sporting events, train stations and random street check constitutional violations.

    If you've only experienced them at the airports, get ready, they're coming to detain you on the streets.

    --

    Liberty.

  96. Let the pictures do the talking by 7-Vodka · · Score: 1
    --

    Liberty.

  97. *shrug* Maybe by Benfea · · Score: 1

    The tests done on those Chertoff Porno Scanners were deeply flawed. They might be as safe as the TSA and Chertoff claim, but until we have better tests there is no way to know for certain.

  98. One problem with this... by geekdoc · · Score: 1

    So... wait... I have one issue here. Per TSA policy, ANYONE can REFUSE to use the advanced imaging technology and ELECT a putdown. If they FORCED her into the body scanner, that's assault. If she CHOSE not to elect the patdown, then she shares some culpability. Argue the merits of whether the patdowns are legal/appropriate/effective/etc., but, as I fly pretty often, I know for a *fact* that there are a litany of signs posted while going through security that advanced imaging technology is optional. If she was that concerned, she should have declined.

  99. Quitcherwhining! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That little punk better quit her whining, 'cause TSA is here to protect her. Whose side is she and her insulin pump on??? I mean, didn't they have any pepper spray to make her quit her whinin'? Isn't she grateful to TSA for breaking her insulin pump?

    "Talking 'bout America... fuck yeah!" Freeedom!!!! Liberty!!!!!!

  100. More to question than the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does someone have to spend $10,000 on a insulin pump in the US? It's a shame it broke, but this isn't a medical procedure, it's a medical device which /is/ going to break, TSA or no.

  101. New level of ignorance - more than "interference" by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Have you ever wondered how these scanning devices work, even in the most general terms? No? Never cared and never bothered? Then please keep your ignorant view to yourself if you cannot even grasp the concept of using emission of a lot of electromagnetic radiation being used to find things that block electromagnetic radiation.
    The intensity of electromagnetic radiation emitted by these devices is a great deal more than people are usually exposed to so the medical devices are not shielded to cope with it.

  102. Dumb bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She should have known better to question the TSA because the TSA is a good thing.

  103. Look by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You Americans should get rid of those brown shirts. That's all there is really to say.

  104. Computers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Software? Hardware? Programming literature? Hackers? Fascinating high-tech solutions?

    No.
    A bone-standard news stuff, which has absolutely nothing to do on Slashdot.

    And it's not the first one of it's kind, not in a long shot. I remember 2001, when an article showed up apologizing, but finding this (9/11) important enough.
    And ever since then, Slashdot has been dropping it's standard, it's quality, turning into a simple little system showing generic news and babbling about it.

    Pfff. Bye, Slashdot.

  105. Homegrown terrorism ... by golodh · · Score: 1
    There is such a thing as homegrown terrorism, see e.g.:

    http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/03/opinion/brooks-bridge-homegrown-terrorists/index.html

    An excerpt:

    While Timothy McVeigh's 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was unusual in its lethality, it was unfortunately far from the only plot hatched by extremists on the right. The Southern Poverty Law Center documents 75 plots, of varying degrees of operational advancement, between July 1995 and June 2009 and an additional 22 from 2009 through November 2011. Alleged plot to blow up bridge foiled 5 held in bomb plot on Ohio bridge

    A study by the Institute for Homeland Security Solutions, a research consortium in North Carolina, found that from 1999-2009, in the United States there were 17 al Qaeda-inspired plots undertaken, 20 plots initiated by white supremacists and 17 by violent anti-government militants. Recent attacks include the 2009 shooting of a guard at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and the murder by "sovereign citizens" in 2010 of two Arkansas police officers at a traffic stop. In January 2011, a bomb laced with rat poison was found in a backpack along the route of a Martin Luther King Jr. parade in Spokane, Washington.

    1. Re:Homegrown terrorism ... by thej1nx · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Here come the apologists. This is exactly what I am talking about. Golodh, Not only do you fail to see any issues with your elected representatives classifying you as potential terrorists, but you actually go and defend their trampling of your rights in name of security theater.
      .

      One question lays to rest all this apologist nonsense. Was TSA formed in response to 1995 bombing? or 2009 plot? If you were concerned so much about "homegrown terrorism", why were all these measures taken in response to 911, an event that was NOT homegrown terrorism? That fact alone signifies that so-called homegrown terrorism was not really much of an issue.

      As far as so-called homegrown terrorism is concerned, none the specific cases you cite, involve any flights apparently. I find that significant and interesting.

      I mean the bombing of buildings... the shootings... it is pretty easy to get a gun(and by that extension explosives) in USA isn't it? What measures are there today to stop someone get a gun legally, and start shooting up people in crowded market street or in some mall? ... or in a bus? How exactly are your protected from occurances of such bombings or attacks at traffic stops, just by having scanners and pat-downs at some airport which is say, 40 kilometers away from the said spot? McVeigh carried out the attacks without any need of any conspiracy being discussed on internet or phone with anyone. So what exactly can all the internet/phone surveillance can do against such nutcases acting alone?

      But I guess folks like you would rather not think logically and rationally and just drink the cool-aid, so that someone can take away your rights and tax money to give you a false sense of security.

      There was a recent article on slashdot, where FBI itself cooked up a terrorist plot, went out of its way to motivate some criminal types by offering cash to plant bombs, and then arrested him and declared it to be a terrorist plot foiled by its diligence. And occasional murders by fringe lunatics/murderers happen in every nation, and have happened for centuries in fact. But it had to be you who had to come up and declared these murderers to be "terrorists" instead.

      Key question : How do these security measures help, considering that a) a terrorist can easily plant a bomb just before the security check point and still blow up hundreds of folks in the waiting area. b) These machines are pretty much useless and have been repeatedly demonstrated to be so, with severe known flaws in them. c) Terrorists do NOT need to rely on a single method of attack. They can just plant a bomb at some political rally next time.

      And to repeat, what are you hoping to achieve with all this futile circus? Save lives? Far, far more people die on road accidents. Where are the billions being poured into preventing that? Or is it that most of the 5000 at WTC were rich folks, whose lives are worth more than just random road-kills? You decide. It is all about proportions.

      Only thing the government needed to do was put all foreigners entering the country under full surveillance. It should be easier than monitoring every single communication happening across the globe. But instead, they decide to declare war on its own citizens and you think this is fine.

    2. Re:Homegrown terrorism ... by jcr · · Score: 1

      Note that neither Kaczinski nor McVeigh attempted to board an aircraft with a weapon of any kind.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    3. Re:Homegrown terrorism ... by golodh · · Score: 1
      I'm sorry, but I still think that passenger checks on domestic flights are, by and large, needed.

      I fully admit that we could loose the security theatre and do the security checks better than we do now and be a lot less obnoxious about them too. Unfortunately this would take more money because you'd need better qualified people. And alas, that's an investment we, as a society, are unwilling to make.

      The girl with the insuline pump is a good example of what's wrong with the current set-up. Those in charge of passenger checking could simply have called her insurance company, doctor, or the hospital, verified that she had such a pump, given her a pat-down and routed her around the scanners. Well qualified, attentive, and more professional security staff would have done so.

      I somewhat agree about the scanners. They pick up some things but not others. It would be better to have people who are up to the job of checking *people* rather than their luggage (like e.g. the security staff in Israeli airports).

      Only, we both know that TSA security staff aren't very well paid, aren't well trained or well qualified, and aren't terribly motivated, but they *are* expected to follow procedures like robots, and they aren't allowed any initiative at all. Only in that way can you achieve basic quality with a lot of temps who'll be flipping hamburgers one month and screening passengers or delivering pizza's the next. Security staff don't get a lot of job security or many career opportunities, and they don't get paid extra for having qualifications. So they don't get them.

      Now why would I be in favour of passenger security checks if guns and explosives are so easy to come by?

      Simple: for a terrorist hijacking an aircraft (and optionally crashing it into a building or a stadium) gives a high return in terms of 'terror' for a fairly modest expenditure of personnel and assets. For better or worse, the idea of hijacking has a lot of mindshare, both with the public and with potential terrorists.

      Now for the damage potential it doesn't matter much whether you're talking about an international or a domestic flight. So you need checks on domestic flights too, or your basic terry will switch from international to domestic.

      Now you seem to suggest the following policy: only check passengers with a foreign passport. To state it like that is to refute it because there is nothing holy about US id's: they can be forged or stolen, like any others. The fact that the local terries haven't yet attempted a highjacking is hopeful. Perhaps it's something that's psychologically impossible for them to do (I would certainly like to think so), but how certain are we? So far we've decided we need to check everyone.

      And yes, airport lobbies are one of those places where you will find a lot of people and not enough security to prevent you from wheeling in a whacking big bomb in your suitcase.

      There are one or two things that argue against it though. First: the potential number of casualties is limited by the blast radius of your bomb. It may be up to a hundred or more, but you have no chance of netting thousands. With a hijacked aircraft, you have. Second: people won't perceive the threat in the same way as with an aircraft being hijacked. A bomb explosion is over very quickly, and people have no time to feel helpless. My guess is that this is one of the things that gives highjackings such mindshare on *our* part. And if it has *our* mindshare, it's attractive for a terrorist.

      And yes, from a pure cost-benefit point of view money spent on increasing traffic safety will probably give you higher returns. But unfortunately we're not talking about a situation where we're up against blind chance. We're in a game-theoretic situation where we must deal with people who are deranged and/or malicious and who are seeking the best cost/benefit form of attack. Leaving an opening you can fly an airliner through simply won't do.

      In technical terms: the question isn't: "Is the expected value of m

    4. Re:Homegrown terrorism ... by berashith · · Score: 1

      the large scale impact of plane hijackings that you describe are impossible now. The crashing into buildings and taking 1000s of lives bits were only possible as the previous policy had been to comply with the hijackers. In one case now, the hijackers decided to force their way into the cockpit and take control of the craft. Two big problems exist with this plot now... 1) the doors are locked and hardened, and policy is to not open them no matter what. 2) the idea of complacency among the travelers is gone, and simple weapons such as small knives will be overwhelmed quickly by passengers. Best case scenario for a hijacking is a high head count inside the plane, and certain death the moment you land. There is a much higher rate of return by bombing the lines at security, which makes any of this current structure obsolete. The TSA is fighting the last war.

    5. Re:Homegrown terrorism ... by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      besides On Board Attacks are Old News since you stand a very good chance of trying to take a plane with Hells Angels , US Marines or other "Rather Agressive Folks" that DO NOT NEED WEAPONS to kick your arse into next week. right now the "best " plan would be
      1 get a small or mostly "smoke" charged device (with a bio-agent vial) into the security checkpoint and have it trigger by the scanner
      2 watch as the response crew gets folks sorted out into
        A Your Mule
        B the folks that need a hospital
        C the folks that can just proceed on their way
      3 wait until your agent spreads all over
      4 see that the TSA/FBI/CIA/CDC takes way to long to figure what happened
      5 TERROR!!

      depending on exactly how nasty an agent you can get this could be VERY BAD.

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    6. Re:Homegrown terrorism ... by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I've heard this alot lately, "check people like the Israeli's do". Do people really think you should have a intensive background search just to travel? Have we fallen that far? I think a metel detector and an alert populace will prevent over 99.999 percent of problems. That last .001 percent is not worth my freedom.

    7. Re:Homegrown terrorism ... by thej1nx · · Score: 1
      All I can say is ... please add the total sum of deaths for suicide/terrorist attacks and hijackings etc in the entire history of mankind.... and then please take the deaths from traffic accidents in just last 1 year alone. Which number do you honestly think is bigger?

      If the latter results in more deaths, why is putting this much extra effort into preventing deaths from just flight attacks(intentional or not) so important to you? Is a simple cost-benefit ratio so difficult for you to comprehend? Dude... I am a non-american and I am suggesting that in light of 911 it is perfectly sane and rational for you guys to monitor me, whenever I am in your country. Doubly so, if I am from anywhere close to the region any of the 911 terrorists had frequented. It makes PERFECT sense to me. But instead, you are pretty sure that homegrown terrorism is a bigger threat if not an equal one. Nice going.

    8. Re:Homegrown terrorism ... by golodh · · Score: 1

      the large scale impact of plane hijackings that you describe are impossible now.

      No it's not. It's just more difficult.

      Don't put your faith in locked doors please, not when an ounce of thermite can burn right through that aluminium door in seconds.

      And yes, with passengers clued-up about their odds of survival when they sit quietly, it's much more difficult to carry off a hijacking.

      Only ... if you relax security to the point where people can actually smuggle guns (e.g. plastic ones) onto an aircraft, I think that your calculation changes.

      In summary: hijacking an aircraft remains "attractive" in terms of potential payoff, simply because the underlying physics of crashing an aircraft into something have not changed. It has become more difficult, but the situation is like a compressed spring, with the TSA doing the compressing. Release the pressure and it will snap back to its original position.

  106. Just TSA.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TSA: helping USA look like a 3rd world country.

    1. Re:Just TSA.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      USA IS a 3rd world country already, look at the state of Internet/mobile communications.
      Getting over a 20-30k$ salary in China/India is getting increasingly easy and pretty much the norm for good CS guys. And everything is way cheaper, you can do very well with that amount of money.

  107. I can confirm by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Man boob from all ages, woman boob, from all ages (and all kind of body type), knock yourself out. In many beach also full frontal nakedness is tolerated or at least shrugged about (normandy and bretagne come to mind) so you can see all sort of snatch and wiener. After a while you stop to care.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:I can confirm by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 1

      The U.S. is uniquely influenced by a warped view of Christianity, that treats sexuality as evil. The actual teaching of Christianity is that sex has permanent physical, emotional and spiritual consequences, and is thus meant to be part of a loving and committed relationship, not a temporary or fleeting one. It isn't a bad thing, it's a good thing that should not be abused and cheapened. Which of course we do, by trying to repress it to the point where we end up being exposed from childhood to only the abuse of sexuality, where the proper use, within loving and committed relationships, no longer exists (and would be taboo even if it did) because such relationships really no longer exist in our culture, with divorce rates exceeding 50% in urban areas and approaching it elsewhere as well. So, in the process of trying to ban all public display of sexuality, we end up becoming among the most hyper-sexualized societies in the world, paying vast sums of money just to see other people's body parts (and learning to see those people just as collections of body parts), because we grew up thinking that sexuality is somehow unnatural as evil. It is sick, and it is not at all what God intended. I'd dare say that Europe is a lot less sick in spite of being a lot less overtly Christian, and I say that *as* a Christian or at least an aspiring one. Now, I'm not just trying to slam pornography. I see it as a problem, sure, but also as a symptom of a much deeper one: we do not naturally form strong, lifelong bonds with other human beings, as people in more sustainable cultures do, usually from adolescence; therefore, we have no socially-sanctioned outlets for our sexuality, which, being the powerful part of our being that it is, naturally seeks expression in some other way. People need each other, for a lot of reasons, of which sex is one, but not the only one. For a variety of reasons our culture does a very poor job of encouraging this, and even discourages it in many ways. I want to be out of the USSA for this among many other reasons. I want our children to grow up in an environment where human beings can live as human beings without having to make excuses or apologize for being the way they are, and where they can grow and mature to the point of being able to start a family before they are too old to actually have one.

  108. The real question is... by xenobyte · · Score: 1

    Why did the TSA agent take the risk of *assuming* the scanner wouldn't hurt the insulin pump? - It is an obvious medical device that need special attention.

    Why not just do the grope search and be on the safe side?

    Apart from abolishing the TSA altogether the best solution would be to make the TSA agents legally responsible and liable for any and all damage resulting from their decisions, from medical damage (from the scanner), over psychic damage (from the grope search) to any and all complications following. So a bad search resulting in a successful terrorist attack or frying an expensive piece of medical technology in the scanner can make it a *very* expensive day at work. They way they will be forced to actually think and adjust their approach accordingly if they want to limit their liability. Oh, and as the scanners actually don't work very well, they can do little to actually prevent terror, which means that they *will* end up paying damages from a terrorist attack at some point, their only sensible course of action would be to quit their jobs or demand better procedures/solutions.

    --
    "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
  109. TSA = Terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TSA is assuming the role of terrorists, for lack of other groups.

  110. Thugs by fongaboo · · Score: 1

    In 2001, my late friend (who would later succumb to complications of his diabetes) and I were attacked on the street by thugs. They tried to rip his insulin pump from his body, thinking it was a pager, as he begged "I need that to live!" It's great now to see that we have thugs in our own government doing the same thing. He must be rolling over in his grave. Part of me is almost glad he doesn't have to be here to see the insanity that we now regard as the 'new normal'.

  111. I hope she sues the TSA and the Feds! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She's got plenty of reason to sue. For one the TSA put her health in danger, and our government passing these laws put her health at risk.
    If I was her I'd sue for the right to not pay any taxes for the rest of my life. sales tax, income tax, property tax, everything.

    Insulin Pumps are calibrated devices, once calibrated and connected they can not be removed. they have sesnsors that have a limited life. Each time an insulin pump is removed the pump needs to be calibrated for the new sensor.

  112. Hope they paid for her repairs by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    I hope they paid for the repairs or buying a replacement... you dont hear about this though.

  113. Just a reminder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The TSA are not your friends.

  114. TSA Doctor by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    The people who work for the TSA are hardly educated. If you have medical notes explaining the situation and you go against those notes then you acting in place of a doctor, meaning you have better knowledge then the doctor who wrote the letter.

    There for this TSA agent assumed the role of a doctor with out being licensed or trained, so he / she should have to bare the full consequence of that action.

  115. I think by NewYork · · Score: 1

    It happened by accident.
    TSA didn't intend break this kid's insulin pump.

    1. Re:I think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It happened through criminal negligence.
      TSA wasn't qualified to say whether the scan could break this kid's insulin pump but assured her it would not.

      FTFY, idiot.

      Question: did the agent tell her "this statement is not medical advice" when informing the insulin-dependent teen that the body scanner wouldn't affect her device? Fuck, even Wikipedia knows to do this.

  116. Ironic by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 1

    So they think that notebooks, cell phones, and electronic gadgets can interfere with avionics of a plane and make you shut them off. But here they think it's ok to blast a sensitive piece of life saving medical equipment with a high power beam of short radio waves at close range.. Good Thinking!

  117. Your tax dollars at work by Somebody+is+Grar · · Score: 1

    Let's keep sending Demoblicans and Republicrats to Congress so we can keep having intrusive and harmful government!!! Yay!

    --
    Grar II
  118. Outcomes by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Stopped working permanently, FRIED!

    But still didn't kill the girl on the spot, but "just" put her in a situation lacking insuline (dangerous on the long term, requires medical supervision on the short term, but no imediate killing involved).

    Pacemakers when subjected to interference bad enough to affect them shutdown, then work again afterwards, they don't fry.

    There's a couple of difference between a pump and a pacemaker:
    - pacemakers are implanted. So you get a human wrapped around the device and functioning as a meat-shield against lots of different radiations. Backscatter and mm-wave don't affect them. A drug pump is an external device (to make it accessible to replenish the drug) and thus is much more exposed to abuse.
    - pacemakers are though as life-critical device. They are designed keeping in mind that if the device stops, the patient could die on the spot. Thus, their are much likely tu use rad-hardened components and designs. Whereas the pump probably makes compromises between costs (rad-hard costs more) and benefits (none was imagined back when the device was designed. Future device will probably start taking into account TSA's marvelous new addition to the security theater).
    - changing a pacemaker require open thoracic surgery, changing a pump costs money, but only requires some needle work. Again, one argument for the second being quasi off-the-sheld components.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  119. Government is out of control by SoothingMist · · Score: 1

    The real solution is for the American people to take back control of a ever-growing government composed of increasingly arrogant people who could care less about the population they are supposed to serve.

  120. 2 words by DarthStrydre · · Score: 1

    buffer bloat

  121. You did this to yourselves. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TSA: The Hero America Deserves.

  122. Re:Is she stupid as well? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, this. Every time a story like this comes along I hear a lot of people complaining, but I see hardly anyone doing anything about it. And, the generation which is mostly full of the people doing the complaining is the same generation which got us into this trouble in the first place.

  123. defibrillators, pacemakers, life critical dev? by rhalstead · · Score: 1

    They are supposed to honor those Dr letters. What about Defibs, pacemakers, and other life critical devices? Those could potentially kill the wearer depending on that the mm machine did to one of them.

  124. She's cute. And the photo reveals her tummy. Yummy tummy.

    --
    I'm the real Vorokrytin P. Winterbuttocks.
  125. your low iq scores by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Security forces, police, the military and security personnel are nothing but sociopathic bullies lying in wait for their next rage surge and indiscretions to use the paronoid "laws" to inflict insult, pain and control on victims under the guise of protections and safety. They enjoy the gang mentality melee they can hide behind.

  126. How You Can Help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next time you go through, opt out and be sure to have a banana in your drawers. Subtly coo as you're touched.

  127. Yes your great country is going to Hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes undoubtedly. And there is nothing you can do about it. Who could have trust in a government so Blatantly corrupt and does not pass any laws that Displays any Love Or compassion to its citizens...

    This is the USA any laws passed will be in whole only to benefit the Government with knew powers or Big business for money, nothing passed for their beloved citizens...