EPIC Files Motion About Ignored Body Scanner Ruling

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EPIC Files Motion About Ignored Body Scanner Ruling

Posted by timothy on Thursday July 19, 2012 @04:49AM from the naked-ambition dept.

OverTheGeicoE writes "The Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a motion in court yesterday regarding the court's ignored year-old ruling on EPIC vs. DHS. EPIC is asking the court to require DHS to start taking public comment within 60 days or, as an alternative, forbid DHS from using body scanners in primary airport screening altogether. If the court orders the latter, that would give EPIC what it originally sought in its lawsuit. Meanwhile, for what it's worth, the related petition on whitehouse.gov has a little more than half the signatures it needs to get an official 'response.' The signing period ends on August 9."

183 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Fool by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 04:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

You are a fool if you think the DHS will ever get smaller or less invasive.
1. Re:Fool by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 05:24 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Why on earth is this modded down? I guess people don't like the bitter truth.
2. Re:Fool by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  I pity the fool!
3. Re:Fool by Mitreya · 2012-07-19 06:15 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You are a fool if you think the DHS will ever get smaller or less invasive.
  This may have been phrased abrasively. More informative would have been this little gem, that should tell you all you need to know about petitions
  The "Abolish TSA" petition had successfully gathered a needed number of signatures and, as a reward, the director of TSA had copy-pasted what looks like a brochure that could be entitled "Why TSA is awesome and what are our plans for next 10 years"
  The most galling part (besides the fact that TSA director responded to the abolish-TSA request) is the fact that he didn't feel the need to fake it and say "We are working to address some of your complaints." I am not surprised TSA is ignoring courts, too.
  So, yeah, good luck with that next petition.
4. Re:Fool by Dishevel · 2012-07-19 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  You are a fool if you think that any government agency or program will get smaller or less invasive without an all out battle.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
5. Re:Fool by CelticWhisper · 2012-07-19 06:34 · Score: 2
  
  We can at least help stop them from getting MORE invasive and let them stagnate for a while. Below is a link to another White House petition to stop TSA from fulfilling their oft-touted plan to expand into rail travel "screening." For many, many reasons, not least of which is the fact that attacks against trains can happen anywhere along the tens of thousands of miles of tracks in the US, TSA screening at train stations is a really, really fucking stupid idea.
  "We The People" requires petitions to hit 150 signatures before they're publicly visible. Please consider signing to at least help push it to that point.
  (Disclaimer: I created this petition and also submitted it as a Slashdot story - it did not get accepted.)
  http://wh.gov/Okf6
  
  --
  Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
  http://www.tsanewsblog.com
6. Re:Fool by Hatta · 2012-07-19 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  True, but we don't have to make it easy for them. If we can't win, at least we can shame them at every opportunity.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
7. Re:Fool by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 07:53 · Score: 0
  
  In this day and age, having to create an account on the Whitehouse webpage to sign a petition expressing displeasure with the overreachings of the Whitehouse ... does not seem prudent (nothing like giving your full contact info to someone right before accusing them of being a bully). I wish you the best success, but while I wholeheartedly agree with you, I cannot sign your petition.
  
  Posting anon for obvious reason.
8. Re:Fool by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  Voters and petitioners are "involved" in government in the same sense that cows are "involved" in factory farms.
9. Re:Fool by scot4875 · 2012-07-19 09:32 · Score: 2
  
  I worked at a public university. It damn well got smaller when there were budget cuts, and I don't recall there being much of a battle besides the Republican legislature saying "we don't want to pay for this anymore".
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
10. Re:Fool by Dishevel · 2012-07-19 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  Classes went away I am sure. As well as services.
  I am also sure that due to the abomination that is tenure they had to keep some useless people.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
11. Re:Fool by Yvanhoe · 2012-07-19 11:14 · Score: 1
  
  My signature is my exact opinion on this situation.
  
  --
  The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
12. Re:Fool by Froze · 2012-07-19 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  Anonymous Coward in name and in deed.
  
  --
  -- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.
13. Re:Fool by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 14:29 · Score: 0
  
  Now if only the judge gets mad enough to have Federal Marshals drag Big Sis out of her office in leg irons and belly chains.
  That I would pay to see.
14. Re:Fool by interkin3tic · 2012-07-19 15:33 · Score: 2
  
  I don't think a press release in response to an online poll necessarily shows the DHS will never get smaller, I think it merely shows that we can't get rid of it by wishing. The whitehouse petitions are clearly a ploy to get young people interested in the Obama administration. Nothing more. The petitions are at best going to change some of Obama's speeches, nothing more. The fact that TSA responded is merely poor PR, it's not proof that voting (ACTUAL voting) can't get rid of DHS. Of course, most voters don't see the DHS as a bad thing, so the uphill battle is convincing them that DHS is bad.
15. Re:Fool by Coren22 · 2012-07-23 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  It would help if people wouldn't confuse the two, as TSA is the devil, and DHS is an organization that allows the collection of intelligence sources to be combined under a single umbrella to allow the sharing of intelligence between agencies.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 04:53 · Score: -1

Send these terrorist supporters to Gitmo!!
-Typical conservative
1. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 04:57 · Score: 0
  
  As a typical conservative, I'm opposed to forcing all airline passengers to choose between a full body porno scan or receive a groping from a TSA employee.
  Tolling fail.
2. Re:LOL by AliasMarlowe · 2012-07-19 05:11 · Score: -1
  
  As a typical conservative, I'm opposed to forcing all airline passengers to choose between a full body porno scan or receive a groping from a TSA employee.
  A real conservative would insist that all would-be passengers get both, of course.
  Except that those unAmerican pinko commie pedophile pirate terrorist pervert traitors at EPIC would be guaranteed to get the "rough" version of the groping. Repeatedly.
  
  --
  Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
3. Re:LOL by busyqth · 2012-07-19 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  Send these terrorist supporters to Gitmo!!
  Yeah! The balmy tropical days under the palms, with cooling sea breezes and spectacular ocean views will break all but the most callous, inhumane terrorists!
  But for those few who still cling to their criminal ways after a year-long tropical holiday, we'll use our secret weapons: A year a the Hotel Fontainebleau Miami Beach combined with a generous cash allowance and a Ferrari GT will break them. It never fails!
4. Re:LOL by interval1066 · 2012-07-19 05:39 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  A real conservative would insist that all would-be passengers get both, of course.
  Of course a real conservative would tell the government to fuck off with scanning, spying, and any warrentless invasive nonsense. And ignore liberal disinformation.
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
5. Re:LOL by tycoex · 2012-07-19 05:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I'm a conservative and I personally don't know any conservatives who like the TSA. We consider it another example of an overgrown government.
  However, the conservatives I tend to be around are probably different than the type you are thinking of. Not all conservatives are rednecks living in trailers, just like not all liberals are actually hippies sitting around in drum circles.
6. Re:LOL by 19thNervousBreakdown · 2012-07-19 05:58 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  So, liberals don't like the TSA. Conservatives don't like the TSA. Why do we still have the TSA again?
  
  --
  <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
7. Re:LOL by houstonbofh · 2012-07-19 06:01 · Score: 2
  
  As someone from Texas, I can tell you that the rednecks living in trailers hate the TSA as well. I have yet to find anyone outside of government that thinks the TSA is a good idea.
8. Re:LOL by harperska · 2012-07-19 06:06 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Because the powers that be who serve neither the conservative interests nor the liberal interests but rather their own political interests happen to like the TSA.
9. Re:LOL by realityimpaired · 2012-07-19 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  A real conservative would insist that all would-be passengers get both, of course.
  Actually, a *real* conservative would see it for what it is: a colossal waste of money with a marginal, at best, success rate. They'd advocate something that has a proven track record and costs a fraction of what the body scanners do: dogs. Make everybody go through a metal detector, and get a once-over from a drug dog and a bomb dog before they're allowed on the plane... everybody's actually safer, everybody feels safer, and you don't have to let a high school dropout look at a naked picture of yourself.
  A fiscal conservative would say that, at least. Being a fiscal conservative, I can vouch for that. Being as socially liberal as they get, however, I guess the ultra-right wing neocons would lump me in the same category as the left-wingers. (gasp, you mean the government can actually *save* money by spending on education and social services? the devil, you say!)
10. Re:LOL by DNS-and-BIND · 2012-07-19 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Just ignore it. It's a national sport of liberals to invent the most odious strawmen and tell conservatives, "This is what you think!" Seriously, once you become aware of it, you start noticing it everywhere.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
11. Re:LOL by sjames · 2012-07-19 06:25 · Score: 0
  
  Genuine question, do you feel that the Republican party has abandoned conservatives such as yourself?
12. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  Just ignore it. It's a national sport of $POLITICAL_GROUP_A to invent the most odious strawmen and tell $POLITICAL_GROUP_B, "This is what you think!" Seriously, once you become aware of it, you start noticing it everywhere.
13. Re:LOL by sjames · 2012-07-19 06:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Why a drug dog? Drug mules are the least likely people to make trouble on a flight, they don't want to call any attention to themselves at all. Because of that, there is no public safety interest to weigh against the 4th amendment.
14. Re:LOL by Mashiki · 2012-07-19 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  Send these terrorist supporters to Gitmo!!
  -Typical conservative
  So...
  Did you hear the news today? The guy who blew up that bus full of Israeli's yesterday in Burgas, was apparently a former Gitmo resident, who was sent back to Sweden. He was originally picked up in Afghanistan. Oops. To be fair, the government officials related to the case have refused to comment on this. And as a note, there are several dozen stories on this as well besides the one on RT. I'm just too lazy to link to something else, or something non-english. The Bulgarian media were the ones to release the information.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
15. Re:LOL by Dishevel · 2012-07-19 06:35 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I think that both parties have abandoned anything close to even giving a shit about what the people think.
  They put out their spin with the knowledge that shitty education and addicting TV keep a high enough percentage of the Moo Cows inattentive and stupid enough to vote via talking points.
  We get the government we deserve.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
16. Re:LOL by KGIII · 2012-07-19 06:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Because they have managed to convinve you that those with opposing views and political ideologies are your enemy. Those in power fear unity and solidarity and are pleased as pie that the citizens are busy fighting with each other instead of actually paying attention. The best tool the government has in its arsenal is your partisanship and willingness to hate your fellow man. Yes, you. You personally.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
17. Re:LOL by citizenr · 2012-07-19 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  As someone from Texas, I can tell you that the rednecks living in trailers hate the TSA as well.
  Except they are the ones working for TSA.
  
  --
  Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
18. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 07:07 · Score: 0
  
  He's a fiscal conservative -- fining drug mules is how the program pays for itself! j/k
  The drug dogs do kinda give the lie to GP's "as socially liberal as they get" line, eh?
19. Re:LOL by DNS-and-BIND · 2012-07-19 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  Nope! Not so. Start looking around. You'll see it's true. Start watching MSNBC on a regular basis. And seriously, have some original ideas instead of parroting.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
20. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 07:12 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know, but please tell your Mom to stop entering and exiting the TSA secured areas until we agree to do a full body cavity search.
  Thank you,
  The TSA
21. Re:LOL by Hatta · 2012-07-19 07:17 · Score: 2
  
  And? Even if that's true, nothing about that changes any of the reasons that pre-crime is a horrible idea.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
22. Re:LOL by dkleinsc · 2012-07-19 07:26 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  In the US, self-described conservatives generally fall into at least 3 major groups:
  1. Libertarians, who primarily believe that government should stay out of their business. Libertarian conservatives will oppose the TSA on the grounds that it infringes on personal liberty, and on the grounds that we have to pay for it. Other common libertarian-conservative positions include believing that taxes are too high and that people should be able to make any kind of contract that they want without government interference.
  2. Authoritarians, who primarily believe that people who are in charge are in charge for good reason and should be followed. Major subgroups here would be the Religious Right, and military veterans who believe in the rightness of their cause. These folks generally support the TSA on the grounds that George W Bush was a good man and therefor must have been doing the right thing when he created it. Other common authoritarian-conservative positions include opposing abortion, and supporting the War on Drugs.
  3. Group supremacists, who primarily believe that people who are like them are better than others and deserve to run things. These sometimes overlap with the authoritarians (e.g. Christian nationalists), but also include racists (which by most surveys comprise something like 10-15% of the US population). These folks vary: They like the fact that it's making life unpleasant for Arab Muslims, but dislike the fact that it's making life unpleasant for upstanding citizens like them. Other common group supremacist positions include support Christian prayers in public schools, English-only laws, and anti-Mexican immigration.
  There are definitely overlaps between the groups, but you'll see arguments made from all 3 positions show up regularly in conservative circles.
  And yes, liberals have similar divides. That's why boiling down all political positions to a 1-axis spectrum is stupid.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
23. Re:LOL by redmid17 · 2012-07-19 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  I assume the dog does bombs and drugs. I'd be okay with just a bomb dog though
24. Re:LOL by serviscope_minor · 2012-07-19 07:44 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  He was originally picked up in Afghanistan. Oops.
  Oops indeed. There's nothing quite like a long detetention with torture to make someone lose it completely.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
25. Re:LOL by BMOC · 2012-07-19 07:44 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Because both sides keep re-electing the same d&mn representatives to Congress?
  If you want the TSA to go away, it's time to stop being afraid to vote for an unknown 3rd party or party-less candidate instead of an entrenched Republicrat/Democan incumbent.
  Ask yourself a simple question before you vote, do you really think that an uneducated, toothless wife-beater-wearing hick from Virginia will do worse for our country in Congress than people who have worked their for 20 years and base every decision on trying to keep their job next cycle? My answer is always "no" to that question, and I live in California.
  Political office was never intended to be a career. It was supposed to be more like the jury system.
  
  --
  I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
26. Re:LOL by C0R1D4N · 2012-07-19 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  So would a real liberal.
27. Re:LOL by LanMan04 · 2012-07-19 08:15 · Score: 0
  
  I'm a conservative and I personally don't know any conservatives who like the TSA. We consider it another example of an overgrown government.
  It's not that conservative dislike the job the TSA does, they dislike that the job is done by the Gov.
  If the TSA were privatized and did exactly the same job, most conservatives would be hunky-dory with it.
  Yeah yeah, I know, straw man. But if the shoe fits...
  
  --
  With the first link, the chain is forged.
28. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 08:19 · Score: 0
  
  No, he is in fact correct. Conservatives invent liberal strawmen all the time, too. This is neither exclusive to nor universal among either group.
29. Re:LOL by Kozar_The_Malignant · 2012-07-19 08:22 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  > The guy who blew up that bus full of Israeli's yesterday in Burgas, was apparently a former Gitmo [rt.com] resident, who was sent back to Sweden.
  No, he was not.
  
  --
  Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
30. Re:LOL by fatphil · 2012-07-19 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Mostly right - the body and limbs don't give a shit, but the two faces do - they both still rely on that smile to keep you thinking that it's doing the right thing, and less importantly to stop you voting for the other head.
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
31. Re:LOL by houghi · 2012-07-19 08:32 · Score: 2
  
  So who voted for them?
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
32. Re:LOL by fatphil · 2012-07-19 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  So, precisely what did gitmo achieve in this particular case? It doesn't sound positive to be honest.
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
33. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  They're bureaucrats, no one voted for them. They were appointed by some politician (often by the advice of other bureaucrats) and rarely if ever re-examined by later politicians. They often develop a disdain for the voting populace, and will do what they can to manipulate the current politicians toward their ends.
34. Re:LOL by Brain-Fu · 2012-07-19 08:47 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  So who voted for them?
  Diebold.
35. Re:LOL by scot4875 · 2012-07-19 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  But they'd be A-Ok with the spying, scanning, and warrantless invasive nonsense being carried by private industry.
  See: Rand Paul.
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
36. Re:LOL by scot4875 · 2012-07-19 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously? You've got to be a either Poe, or have an unparalleled degree of selection bias.
  I can't even read through a thread about something completely un-political like a video game controversy without someone telling me what liberals think.
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
37. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 09:41 · Score: 0
  
  Yep. Real conservatives and real liberals would *both* be foaming at the mouth over this nonsense. It's unfortunate that we've got very few of either in office right now.
38. Re:LOL by realityimpaired · 2012-07-19 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  She, and no it doesn't... I think drugs should be legal and regulated. If you're illegally importing the drugs, that takes the opportunity to tax them away from the government.
39. Re:LOL by Githaron · 2012-07-19 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  I would only be ok with it if it was privatized AND the airlines had the option to have as little or as much security as they deemed necessary. In other words, customers could go to the airlines that cater most to their desires.
40. Re:LOL by cdrguru · 2012-07-19 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  So why do we have the TSA? Simple - airline insurance. 9/11 proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the airline security screening was worthless as far as keeping planes from crashing. Therefore the insurance confidence was shaken and what we would have seen as a followup was revocation of the policies for airlines.
  Airlines don't fly without insurance. You can bank on that. So what would have happened if the TSA hadn't come along? Well, some type of far more invasive screening would have been required by the airline insurance companies. What I believe they got was the government told them "we're taking care of it, just be a little patient." I believe TSA was in place and screening passengers within a couple of months after 9/11 and I suppose the FAA, airlines and other government agencies convinced the insurance companies to keep coverage in place - even in the face of no confidence - for that couple of months.
  So, we want to get rid of the TSA now. Fine, step 2 after deciding to get rid of the TSA is to put something in place that the airline insurance companies will accept as valid screening to prevent planes from being crashed. Failure to have this in place on day 1 post-TSA means no airlines will fly.
  No, the airlines aren't going to be allowed by their insurance companies to resume screening independently. It was "proven" that they can't handle the job. And no airline is going to fly anywhere with the potential for a bankrupting event to happen without insurance coverage. One accident, even a minor one that most of the passengers walked away from would likely bankrupt an airline without insurance coverage.
  So the first problem is to figure out how the airlines keep flying. Figure that out and you have the problem solved.
41. Re:LOL by mianne · 2012-07-19 11:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Proven? How?
  Boxcutters were not illegal to carry aboard commercial aircraft on 9/11/01. Mace and pepper spray were. However then, as now, a canister of pepper spray would be nearly invisible on Xray, and may or may not be seen on a person using AIT. 70% of simulated weapons and explosives still make it through the current screening regimen. I doubt that number is much different (either better or worse) than in the days of private security screening.
  Two reasons that the 9/11 attacks were successful is because of the SOP which essentially said, "To reduce risk to passengers or flight crews, don't put up any resistance and comply with hijackers' demands." That thinking allowed three planes to be used as cruise missiles to disastrous effect. Which brings up the second major factor: Credible intelligence reports were mishandled. That student pilot(s) stated they wanted to know how to fly 747s, but were not interested in how to land them.
  The first factor was corrected automatically the very same day with United 93's passengers upon learning what had happened earlier that morning took control of the situation and thwarted the attack.. Yes they all died, but they knew they would have anyway, but they prevented much more death and destruction. Reinforcing and locking cockpit doors was a very intelligent procedure change in the wake of that fateful day. That is something that I fully support, and I expect that the insurance companies do as well.
  But what of all the other apparatus? Does anyone seriously believe that a bottle of water or a tube of toothpaste poses a credible security risk? Intelligence gathering has increased dramatically, but information sharing as a result has, if anything, only gotten worse.They've essentially created a much larger haystack from which to search for the same needles. Think of the "underwear bomber" attempted attack. It was reported that the terrorist's own father reported him to authorities. Yet he was still granted a visa into the U.S.? WTF? However tragedy was averted due to the important changes I cited earlier. Passengers (and an air marshal) recognized the threat that intelligence officials and security screeners missed and stopped the attack cold in its tracks! Even if he had managed to detonate his explosive, the worst case scenario would be that the plane crashed killing all aboard and possibly a few people on the ground as well. The odds that the plane would have crashed into a densely populated area, or a building of strategic and/or national significance would have been astronomically small.
  But back to your insurance standpoint, do you believe any sane underwriter would think increasing the cost of the security apparatus 1000-fold or more to reduce the probability of a terrorist attack by a fraction of one-percent would be a wise choice? Considering that in the process, they've increased their liability to claims based on civil rights violations, delayed flights, stolen or damaged items in luggage, and health problems that may be (rightly or wrongly) attributed to backscatter radiation by passengers, screeners, flight crews, and airport staff?
  No. If the companies who insured airports and airlines were the ones dictating security procedures, I would expect things to look a lot more like they did on September 10, 2001 than they do today.
  
  --
  Javascript, cookies, flash, and ActiveX must be enabled in order to view this sig.
42. Re:LOL by Mashiki · 2012-07-19 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  Oops indeed. There's nothing quite like a long detetention with torture to make someone lose it completely.
  I guess you missed the point where he'd already been picked up previously before the fact with a suicide vest and $50k on him. Oh well, and that was well before hand. Just keep a spinning. I'm sure you can dig your way out of that one.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
43. Re:LOL by Trogre · 2012-07-19 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  Bingo!
  I believe the governments of today cannot be easily pigeon-holed as liberal, conservative, left or right. They want power and money. However they market themselves is whatever serves their purpose at the time - that purpose often simply being to get voted back in.
  
  --
  "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
44. Re:LOL by chrismcb · 2012-07-19 18:05 · Score: 1
  
  Why?
  Letting a police dog sniff me is (or should be) just as bad an invasion of my 4th amendment rights as the current TSA is.
  And no, it won't make me or anyone else any safer than the current TSA. Well actually a little safer as their will no longer be large group of people standing by a garbage can full of suspected explosives waiting to go through a radiation machine.
45. Re:LOL by dbIII · 2012-07-20 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  In other places those three groups would be called reactionaries (or anarchists for some of the libertarians), but the USA is the sort of place where you can scream "smash the state" and say you need your gun for a revolution and still call yourself a conservative.
  I'm convinced that in the US dictionary "conservative" just means "good" to anyone that calls themselves that. "Libertarian" obviously means nothing when Koch, arse licking lovers of plutocrats that want to see them as royalty and outright anarchists all wrap themselves in flags to hide what they really are and call themselves by that label.
46. Re:LOL by danbert8 · 2012-07-20 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  Incorrect. Rand Paul and other libertarians would be A-OK with a company requiring you follow their security procedures as a condition of you being admitted onto their aircraft. In no way would private industries be allowed to spy on or search you or your possessions in your own home or in any public location.
  
  --
  Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
47. Re:LOL by danbert8 · 2012-07-20 01:02 · Score: 1
  
  Here here! So get on that media, there are other candidates running for president other than Obama and Romney... Why aren't they being reported on? Or even polled about? Well no wonder they can't win, you won't give them a chance!
  
  --
  Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
48. Re:LOL by Rich0 · 2012-07-20 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but a real neocon would get with the program and funnel bribes, err, lobbiests, to their local representative to promote the latest billion-dollar security theater prop their company has come up with.
49. Re:LOL by KGIII · 2012-07-20 14:20 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry for the delayed response but even IF this was an insurance thing, would they agree to it? LOL Probably not if they were the one footing the bill.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
First Post by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 04:55 · Score: -1

I would like to file this First Post!
1. Re:First Post by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 05:20 · Score: 0
  
  well, Steve, you fucked this up like you fucked up that submission you made to me yesterday.
  Stop reading slashdot and GBTW.
Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by cpu6502 · 2012-07-19 04:56 · Score: 2

So ask my not-so-smart alumni on facebook.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
1. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 04:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Than molested every day for the rest of my working life? Yes.
2. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by DeTech · 2012-07-19 05:06 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  molested every day for the rest of my life? Yes.
  I know some people who would pay for that.
3. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by girlintraining · 2012-07-19 05:10 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Even if there was no security whatsoever on planes beyond a cursory visual inspection of passengers to make sure there weren't any guns or knives on the plane, it would still be safer than travel by car in terms of risk of death per miles travelled. Very few planes fall out of the sky because of bad piloting. A great many cars are as I am typing this right now crashing into other cars, catching fire due to poor maintenance, etc. And let's not forget that all of them are driven by "above average" drivers. -_-
  Death by terrorist ranks lower on my list of ways I could die than "slipping and falling in bathtub". Statistically... My odds of dying in a freak accident at home are far higher than death by terrorist. If only my rubber ducky got as much government funding for it's potential to kill me as counter-terrorism does...
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
4. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 05:26 · Score: 0
  
  I depends. A curvy girl dressed as a naughty cop I think is something I could work with.
5. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  based on my experience, it's usually an overweight black guy or a possibly gay white man.
6. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by Firehed · 2012-07-19 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  Have you had an opt-out pat-down? If you can get off to that, I'd be impressed. They go out of their way to make it slow and embarrassing ("MALE OPT-OUT OVER HERE!") to hope you won't do it again, but even 1% of passengers doing it would probably overload the system.
  Also, you *do* pay for it - there's a TSA fee in your airfare (it may be taked on or built-in)
  
  --
  How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
7. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by frosty_tsm · 2012-07-19 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  Even if there was no security whatsoever on planes beyond a cursory visual inspection of passengers to make sure there weren't any guns or knives on the plane, it would still be safer than travel by car in terms of risk of death per miles travelled. Very few planes fall out of the sky because of bad piloting. A great many cars are as I am typing this right now crashing into other cars, catching fire due to poor maintenance, etc. And let's not forget that all of them are driven by "above average" drivers. -_-
  Death by terrorist ranks lower on my list of ways I could die than "slipping and falling in bathtub". Statistically... My odds of dying in a freak accident at home are far higher than death by terrorist. If only my rubber ducky got as much government funding for it's potential to kill me as counter-terrorism does...
  Scariness:
  
  Sharks > Terrorism > Car Crash
  
  Likelyhood:
  
  Car Crash > Terrorism > Sharks
8. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by Tangential · 2012-07-19 05:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The days of hijacking a plane and flying it into a ground target are over. With the cockpit doors bolted and the passengers wary (and often pissed off) the only real chance a terrorist has is to blow up a plane and hope for some collateral damage on the ground. If they are reasonably determined, they can accomplish that without even being on board the aircraft.
  
  So not only are you correct, statistically speaking, but it is incredibly hard to justify the dollars spent by the TSA. As a nation we make safety versus convenience and cost tradeoffs every day. This is no different and there's no way a terrorist event on a plane could cost the nation even a fraction of what we spend annually to theoretically prevent them from occurring.
  
  --
  Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
9. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by houstonbofh · 2012-07-19 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  More people in this country have won the lottery than have been killed by terrorists. Do you feel in imminent danger of winning the lottery?
10. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 06:09 · Score: 0
  
  Your facts are insignificant. The masses are too stupid to grasp them, and governing officials on both sides of the fence play to this stupidy in their continued grabs for power.
  If the government took all-and-only those measures that were actually reasonable in the wake of 9-11, the public would have booted every last one of them out of office for "failing to protect us."
  Don't blame this mess on your politicians, blame it on your fellow voters.
11. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by Jason+Levine · 2012-07-19 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Death by terrorist ranks lower on my list of ways I could die than "slipping and falling in bathtub". Statistically
  The solution is obvious: We need TSA officials in every bathroom in America making sure you pass by a security checkpoint before getting into the bathtub. Sure, they'll be completely ineffective, but what other choice do we have if we want to win the War On Bathtubs?
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
12. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 06:10 · Score: 0
  
  Unless you surf...
13. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 06:28 · Score: 0
  
  I see the quote about risk of death per miles traveled and I wonder if that's another one of those sneaky statistical mis-directions. What would risk of fatality per vehicle trip look like? What is the risk of boarding a bus for the trip, vs flying your own airplane?
  What I'd really care about, generally, is what the risk is of my dying for each of the alternatives for a single trip I might be planning.
  http://www.meretrix.com/~harry/flying/notes/safetyvsdriving.html has some interesting takes (caveat: I haven't validated the math used).
14. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by element-o.p. · 2012-07-19 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  FWIW, your post is slightly ambiguous -- you ask a question in the subject, as if you think the answer should be, "No, of course not!" However, the body of your post suggests that you might really be commenting that the question in the subject isn't really what *you* think; it's what your "not-so-smart alumni on facebook" think.
  
  I recognize your nick; you and I have often argued the same points (from the same side, just to be clear), so I suspect you are trying to state the latter rather than the former. However, since I've often heard people arguing from the point of view as your not-so-smart alumni, I think it bears mentioning that the question in your subject is based upon a false premise: EITHER get nudie-scanned and/or groped prior to boarding an airplane OR get blown up by terrorists. The fact, however, is that any given person has roughly a one in 30 million chance of dying in a terrorist attack in the United States. Therefore, the choice is actually 1) get nudie-scanned and/or molested by a TSA thug prior to boarding an airplane or 2) take the one in thirty million chance of being killed in a terrorist attack. Quite frankly, I'll take the extremely minimal risk over the certainty of being felt up by a (barely) trained, borderline psychotic monkey every single time, thanks.
  
  --
  MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
15. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by CelticWhisper · 2012-07-19 06:45 · Score: 2
  
  Editor's note: The above comment does not account for fatality statistics involving laser-equipped sharks, land sharks, genetically-engineered supergenius sharks, or robot sharks.
  
  --
  Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
  http://www.tsanewsblog.com
16. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by element-o.p. · 2012-07-19 06:47 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  ...and the passengers wary (and often pissed off) the only real chance a terrorist has...
  Dang...I never thought of that. TSA *IS* effective counter-terrorism, just not in the way I ever thought. They get the passengers pissed off before boarding the airplane, the more pissed off the better. Then, if someone *does* try to hijack or blow up an airliner in flight, the rest of the passengers, eager to vent their frustration on someone, ANYONE, rip the terrorist to shreds. Voila! Terrorism problem solved!
  
  --
  MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
17. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 06:59 · Score: 0
  
  If you really are an above average driver though then the statistics will look different. Radically different in some cases because the range is huge. The average driver is way down the scale from some drivers.
  Generally speaking people are idiots that don't care about anything. Now think about how many people it takes to keep a plane in working order. Average and below people can trust them because well, it's at least as good or better than what they could do. For those very far above average then the odds don't seem so great.
18. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by smooth+wombat · 2012-07-19 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  The solution is obvious: We need TSA officials in every bathroom in America
  
  So what you're saying is we need a tinkle fairy in every bathroom?
  
  --
  We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
19. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  I've been opting out for, what, two years now? I've never been through one of those machines. I think the patdown stinks. I think if someone tried to do that without a badge they'd find their ass on the floor. And I feel essentially the exact opposite of embarassed when I proudly say, "Opting out!" in a loud, clear voice. Others seem so impressed that I often have the three or four people around me opt out as well, and, yes, we create a little clog in the security line (and several times, after is it clear that they are short on agents to do pat downs, I've been sent on my way WITHOUT one). Why, last week in Reagan the scanners were roped off - don't know why - and no one was going through them, and no one was getting pat downs. If that doesn't show us what nutso security theater it is, I'm not sure what will.
20. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by ACE209 · 2012-07-19 07:10 · Score: 2
  
  Toilet Security Agency?
  
  --
  "we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
21. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by coats · 2012-07-19 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Measure the amount of travelers time that TSA costs in waking lifetimes, and then tell me which is more deadly: the terrorists or the TSA. Run the numbers and you'll see that the TSA is the most deadly terrorist organization on the planet.
  
  --
  "My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
22. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 07:16 · Score: 0
  
  FWIW, your post is slightly ambiguous
  Thank Poe's law for that, but FWIW it was entirely clear to me he was pointing out the false dichotomy by stating it -- under the (mostly correct IMO) assumption that /. is a room full of people smart enough to that you don't need to say "Look, the dichotomy, she is false!"
23. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by KingMotley · 2012-07-19 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  A car crash involving terrorist sharks gets classified which way?
24. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 07:30 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly. If I was a terrorist determined for whatever reason to kill approximately 250 people on an airplane, I'd just load up an 18-wheeler with my favorite explosive material, drive it through the flimsy gates that food service trucks go through to get on the tarmac and ram a taxiing plane in the nose.
  There are more holes in the TSA's security theater than swiss cheese.
25. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by CelticWhisper · 2012-07-19 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  If the crash occurred near a body of water, it's most likely due to laser-equipped sharks. If it happened a sufficient distance from such a geographical feature, it is categorically due to a land shark attack and will be filed as such. Land shark involvement does not rule out laser assistance in the incident. Also, either scenario has a nonzero probability of involving sharks of above-average intelligence or cybernetic bodily components. Due to administrative inefficiencies, classification has not yet drawn suitable parallels between electronic processing capacity and biological intellect, and so robot shark involvement is considered mutually exclusive with genetically-engineered supergenius shark involvement.
  
  --
  Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
  http://www.tsanewsblog.com
26. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by BMOC · 2012-07-19 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  Well then their training should include some motion in the ocean.
  
  --
  I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
27. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by element-o.p. · 2012-07-19 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  You know what they say about assumptions... ;)
  
  --
  MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
28. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 07:47 · Score: 0
  
  You forgot to include both pool and law sharks.
29. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 07:49 · Score: 0
  
  The solution is obvious: We need TSA officials in every bathroom in America making sure you pass by a security checkpoint before getting into the bathtub. Sure, they'll be completely ineffective, but what other choice do we have if we want to win the War On Bathtubs?
  Now look here, Mr. Shower Stall manufacturer, you can either hire a better lobbyst or you get in line with the rest of us. Unless it gets a budget boost of at least 15%, HomeSec will have no resources to fight your War on Bathtubs, because it's too busy fighting the War On Chocolate Eggs.
30. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by Gr8Apes · 2012-07-19 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  I opt out every time, just like I opt out of CT scans every time I visit a doc/dentist. I've had enough "optional" radiation, and there's no reason to subject myself to anymore, especially from a source that's not been vetted by science and available to me to review. There's no need to be more anon about this.
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
31. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 08:24 · Score: 0
  
  Have you had an opt-out pat-down? If you can get off to that, I'd be impressed.
  Trivial. Just say no. You may not get on that plane, but they won't touch you.
32. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 08:28 · Score: 0
  
  That's National Airport, I have no idea why people insist on calling it after some Alzheimer victim.
33. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  Or, they'd waltz into a crowded, busy airport with no ticket, carrying a duffel bag full of explosives and ball bearings, and detonate it when they're asked for their ticket.
  Hundreds dead and more injured, and airports across the nation shut down because nobody dares to fly again. And all that security theatre we've been dealing with? It makes an attack like that *possible*, because it pens up a bunch of people in a tightly-packed, slow-moving area with no option to leave.
34. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 09:33 · Score: 0
  
  This should be modded to +11
35. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by cdrguru · 2012-07-19 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is it has been proven that airline managed screening is defective - 9/11 happened on their watch. No airline is going to be insured without there being screening that has so far not been proven to be defective.
  Sure, it is hard to justify in a vacuum. Problem is, without insurance the airlines don't fly. The government might be able to take over the liability protection completely, but so far the US government has never done anything like that. I don't think the flying public would be too happy to have the airlines granted immunity from getting sued either, which the US government has done and could do again.
  So we are likely faced with the airlines having to have insurance for passenger deaths. I'd be happy to not have the TSA in place, but what else are we going to do so insurance companies will cover the airlines?
36. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by Githaron · 2012-07-19 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  Shush! A lot of stupid people spend a huge chunk of their salaries on lottery tickets because they think they are going to win the lottery. We don't need them voting to keep the TSA around.
37. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 10:34 · Score: 0
  
  They go out of their way to make it slow and embarrassing
  So make it embarrassing for them. Pop a Blue Bomber at the appropriate time interval before you get to the head of the line. For boner- er, BONUS points, crack a great big smile when they notice your Washington Monument.
38. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-07-19 17:36 · Score: 2
  
  If I was a terrorist
  oooh, if you'd used the phrase "if I were a terrorist" you would have been fine, but now all the alarms at Ft. Meade have gone off and the Slashdot IP logs will be subpoenaed.
  Of course, that's just my subjunctive opinion.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
39. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by chrismcb · 2012-07-19 18:08 · Score: 1
  
  there are VERY VERY VERY few terrorists in this world. Yes there are some, and most of them don't target airplanes. You are more likely to crash due to maintenance than from a bomber. There really aren't that many.
  I had one TSA agent inform me "the threat is real." What threat?
40. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by jaminJay · 2012-07-19 20:21 · Score: 1
  
  It's not the check point that ires me, it's all the selfish gits who wait until they're at the front of the queue before getting their stuff organised. Be prepared, damnit!
  
  --
  Leela: "Is all the work done by children?" Alien: "No, not the whipping."
41. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-07-20 00:10 · Score: 1
  
  If you're not opposing this in every way possible, you are paying, with your taxes, for a stranger to grope your children.
  
  Why aren't you demanding this change?
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
42. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 02:05 · Score: 0
  
  Good grief, where did you learn critical thinking skills? MTV University? The Daily Show 101?
  "The problem is it has been proven that airline managed screening is defective - 9/11 happened on their watch."
  Back then the airlines were not managing screening, the airports were - regulated by the state.
  "No airline is going to be insured without there being screening that has so far not been proven to be defective."
  I don't even understand what this sentence is supposed to mean. 'not been proven defective' does that make you happy? You do not understand how insurance works. For the right money you can basically get anything you want insured.
  "The government might be able to take over the liability protection completely"
  I don't even know how to address that, your arguments are so convoluted and all over the map, you don't even make sense.
  Here's the thing, you must understand that there are interests in play here. The airlines have an interest in their business, in making a profit that is. Successful terrorist attacks are guaranteed to negatively impact the airlines bottom line ans as such security will by definition be top on the list of their business models and failures in security will be addressed as effectively and promptly as possible to support the business.
  The state has interests too; successful business practices is not on their list anywhere. Preserving the interests of the state is the only item, and that means expanding powers, increasing the number of state employess - and regulations and budget, and that is where it ends. They could care less if airline ABC goes out of business, and they could care less if flight 123 is attacked and destoryed. Many would argue that a successful terrorist attack furthers the interest of the state thereby increasing their power and while that may or may not be a factor it's not relevant to the main point.
  The 4th amendment protects us against unreasonable search and seizure, which is exactly what these invasive TSA searches are. DHA - and by extension the Obama administration is violating the constitution with current TSA practices and policies.
  Private industry however enjoys no such protection, and you are therefore free to choose which airline you want to do business with, understanding what their security practices are. Airline managed security would not violate the constitution.
  You have now been educated. You are welcome.
43. Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 12:51 · Score: 0
  
  Even if there was no security whatsoever on planes beyond a cursory visual inspection of passengers to make sure there weren't any guns or knives on the plane, it would still be safer than travel by car in terms of risk of death per miles travelled.
  Even if there was no security whatsoever on planes beyond a cursory visual inspection of passengers to make sure there weren't any guns or knives on the plane, it would still be safer than to get zapped repeatedly by an untested radiation source.
Keep up the pressure by OldGunner · 2012-07-19 04:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

Like any political organization, TSA will only respond to pressure. The more points of pressure, the better. The petition is one point of pressure, the EPIC court petition is another. Letters to individual congress-critters would also help. Just keep up the pressure.

--
Vietnam Veteran / Former Postal Worker -- Use Caution When Taunting!
1. Re:Keep up the pressure by Dog-Cow · 2012-07-19 04:58 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It says a lot about government when a court order isn't enough pressure! Why do we bother following the rule of law again?
  (I know. It's because it's actually the rule of force. Look up rhetorical in the dictionary.)
2. Re:Keep up the pressure by luther349 · 2012-07-19 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  if you have money you dont. guess someone forgot to tell you.
3. Re:Keep up the pressure by Lunix+Nutcase · 2012-07-19 05:11 · Score: 2
  
  Did you miss the part where Congress has the Consitutional power to define the jurisdiction of the inferior courts of the federal judiciary and can limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court? When did you think they were ever beholden to court orders when it's the body given sole authority to create the courts and vest them with authority. The only thing Congress can't limit is anying that falls under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but that doesn't apply in this case.
4. Re:Keep up the pressure by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-07-19 05:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I see your court order and raise you one national security handwave...
5. Re:Keep up the pressure by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 06:33 · Score: 0
  
  I see your court order and raise you one national security handwave...
  You mean national security "finger-wave", don't you?
6. Re:Keep up the pressure by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 07:12 · Score: 0
  
  They could in theory fine (or punish) them in contempt of court for ignoring court order.
7. Re:Keep up the pressure by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 14:34 · Score: 0
  
  "Laws are for little people." - Big Sis (Janet Napolitano)
8. Re:Keep up the pressure by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 12:08 · Score: 0
  
  Why do we bother following the rule of law again?
  You've got that wrong. You follow the rule of law. They don't have to, they don't need to. They are the law.
  Unlike Judge Dredd, who is the raw.
Sure, Sign the Petition for some "Extra Screening" by SirBitBucket · 2012-07-19 04:57 · Score: 0

Just put your name down on the list of travelers who get the full Monty of invasive security theatre, er... screening... I hear the TSA has hired a new batch of proctologists just for the petition signers...
democracy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 04:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

If everyone in one major airport on one day decided to refuse to submit to these scanners - a simple word-of-mouth campaign with leaflets handed out by people outside the airport would do the trick - a domino effect would mean they'd be eliminated nationwide by the end of the month.
But that would require people not to want them.
The problem ain't your reps - it's the people they rep.
1. Re:democracy by OldGunner · 2012-07-19 05:01 · Score: 2
  
  Didn't that get attempted once, and IIR, TSA shut down the scanners for the day so no one could refuse.
  They then claimed victory because on one complained.
  
  --
  Vietnam Veteran / Former Postal Worker -- Use Caution When Taunting!
2. Re:democracy by MichaelJ · 2012-07-19 05:08 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Last year, day before Thanksgiving. They called it "Opt-Out Day."
  
  --
  
  Michael J.
  Root, God, what is difference?
3. Re:democracy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 05:47 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singing a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an
  organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in singing a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement.
  And that's what it is, the Alice's Restaurant Anti-Massacre Movement, and all you got to do to join is sing it the next time it come's around on the guitar.
  With feeling.
4. Re:democracy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 05:48 · Score: 0
  
  Your plan requires that people think enough to consider the consequences of their actions. Thus, it is infeasible.
5. Re:democracy by OldGunner · 2012-07-19 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  Perfect! Wonder how many read /. readers even know what you are referencing. You may have to submit an 8x10 glossy photo with circles and arrow and a paragraph on the back explaining the nature of the crime.
  
  --
  Vietnam Veteran / Former Postal Worker -- Use Caution When Taunting!
6. Re:democracy by houstonbofh · 2012-07-19 06:09 · Score: 2
  
  So should I add...
  
  "I don't want you to grope my pickle.
  I just want to ride my motor-cickle.
  I don't want to die.
  I just want to ride my motor-ci,
  cle.
7. Re:democracy by magarity · 2012-07-19 06:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If everyone in one major airport on one day decided to refuse to submit to these scanners - a simple word-of-mouth campaign with leaflets handed out by people outside the airport would do the trick - a domino effect would mean they'd be eliminated nationwide by the end of the month
  Everyone who wasn't near the beginning of the line would miss their flight. Do you think the TSA people doing the frisking care if you miss your flight? The airline would blame you for not showing up early enough to make it through security. About all that would be accomplished would be a lot of inconvenienced travellers. You have to vote for political candidate who promise to do something about TSA, not cute shennanigans.
8. Re:democracy by dkleinsc · 2012-07-19 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  You know, I think it would be kind of awesome to have a chorus of people in line for airport security to break out into a rousing chorus of Alice's Restaurant on Thanksgiving Day. I mean, if you did that, the "WTF?" factor would be high enough that people would take notice.
  I'd participate, but I haven't taken a plane anywhere for several years precisely because I oppose the security measures.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
9. Re:democracy by belthize · 2012-07-19 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  A typical case of American Blind Justice.
10. Re:democracy by Githaron · 2012-07-19 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  I think the airlines would likely have a whole plethora of lawsuits on their hands if they did that.
11. Re:democracy by magarity · 2012-07-19 14:43 · Score: 1
  
  And the suit would say, what exactly... "I participated in an exercise to make going through security abnormally long and therefore missed my flight. The airline is clearly responsible for my actions and should refund my money."
12. Re:democracy by chrismcb · 2012-07-19 18:11 · Score: 1
  
  I am amazed at the number of people who think they are safer. Look at how many slashdotters believe the TSA makes them safer. Safer from what I haven't figured out. And really that is part of the problem.
13. Re:democracy by Githaron · 2012-07-20 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  I assumed that a significant number of passengers who were near the back of the line weren't planning on opting-out. Besides, no matter what kind of security they make people go through, people should not have to show up more than two hours before a flight. Two hours is already ridiculous enough.
whitehouse.gov "petition" == LOLz by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 04:58 · Score: -1

I'm convinced that site is there for the Whitehouse staff to have some laughs.
1. Re:whitehouse.gov "petition" == LOLz by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 07:20 · Score: 0
  
  Nope, it's there to provide a facade of "transparency", making people (who don't care enough to look deeper) feel good about the Obama administration and thus making them more likely to vote for him this fall.
Petition is worthless by girlintraining · 2012-07-19 04:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

The petitions on whitehouse.gov have absolutely no value. There's no law compelling the President to respond, although he's stated a response will be made. Several responses to petitions have been little more than filler material -- utterly worthless from a public policy standpoint.
Does anyone here really believe Obama's going to risk appearing 'soft' on terrorism in an election year? Nothing is going to happen on this issue this year, no matter how many judgements, rulings, petitions, etc., are made -- the status quo very rarely changes during an election year. Every effort will be made to delay this until after November...

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
1. Re:Petition is worthless by saveferrousoxide · 2012-07-19 05:24 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, if Obama really wants to win this election, he would get a LOT of support across party lines by signing an executive order banning the use of scanners and "enhanced pat-downs" (i think they call them) as a primary screening method until some demonstration of safety and usefulness was satisfied (which it wouldn't be). Conservatives, Libertarians, and Liberals would all sing his praises.
2. Re:Petition is worthless by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 05:54 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  he would get a LOT of support across party lines by signing an executive order banning the use of scanners
  
  The problem is, that doesn't seem to be true. 4 out of 5 Americans support the use of full body scanners.
  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20022876-503544.html
  There have been other polls about the same thing with slightly different results, but they all show a significant majority favor their use - such as this one with 2/3 in support: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/22/AR2010112205514.html
  Americans value the illusion very highly, and will trade almost any amount of freedom for it.
3. Re:Petition is worthless by OldSport · 2012-07-19 05:55 · Score: 2
  
  Those petitions are *worse* than worthless: they give people the illusion of participatory democracy when in reality nothing tangible will ever come from them, and in doing so distract people from other forms of participation (writing representatives, say) that actually have tangible effects, however marginal.
  As for the scanners, it always amazes me how the political party that is supposed to be all about individual freedom and liberty, personal privacy, and limited government consistently spearheads the erosion of those very same ideals. That the Republicans are not out in force against the use of these things is one of many signs that they are ideologically bankrupt.
4. Re:Petition is worthless by LateArthurDent · 2012-07-19 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Does anyone here really believe Obama's going to risk appearing 'soft' on terrorism in an election year? Nothing is going to happen on this issue this year, no matter how many judgements, rulings, petitions, etc., are made -- the status quo very rarely changes during an election year. Every effort will be made to delay this until after November...
  Honestly, I figure it would be beneficial for him to come out fully against the TSA. He's a democrat. The people who think that's equal to appearing soft on terrorism are the republicans, who are not going to vote for him anyway. He takes a stand against the TSA and he has most of the liberals, some of the republicans who see through the security theater, and a bunch of the libertarians. It's a win all around.
  Not that I think he's going to do it, but it's not the election stopping him.
5. Re:Petition is worthless by saveferrousoxide · 2012-07-19 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  *sigh* and I weep for the future of this once great country...thanks for the sobering info...
6. Re:Petition is worthless by Hatta · 2012-07-19 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  The petitions on whitehouse.gov have absolutely no value
  I disagree. They are excellent examples of just how impoverished our democracy is.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
7. Re:Petition is worthless by BMOC · 2012-07-19 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  I actually doubt the validity of those polls, and I think you should consider the source of mainstream media to be completely tainted at this point.
  
  --
  I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
8. Re:Petition is worthless by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 08:11 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is, that doesn't seem to be true. 4 out of 5 Americans support the use of full body scanners.
  I wonder how many of those fly with any regularity...
9. Re:Petition is worthless by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 09:23 · Score: 0
  
  I would tend to agree.
  Also the man has a "to-kill" list gave the order for the SEAL raid that got Bin'Ladin and has been ordering drone attacks on other "high value targets" (presumably while wearing his Nobel Peace Prize for optimal irony). Trying to make him look "soft" on terrorism is a loosing battle.
10. Re:Petition is worthless by Githaron · 2012-07-19 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I think those petitions will probably be beneficial in the long run. As people start waking up, they will realize they are being blatantly ignored. Anger usually leads to passion. Passion usually leads to action.
11. Re:Petition is worthless by Githaron · 2012-07-19 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  One good thing does not outweigh the overly massive amount of bad Obama has brought to the table.
12. Re:Petition is worthless by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-07-19 17:28 · Score: 1
  
  The petitions on whitehouse.gov have absolutely no value.
  Also, getting people concerned with privacy to sign up to be in the Whitehouse database, to sign a worthless petition...
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
13. Re:Petition is worthless by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-07-19 17:31 · Score: 1
  
  He takes a stand against the TSA and he has most of the liberals,
  He has them already.
  some of the republicans who see through the security theater
  perhaps a few, for whom it's their top issue. All the rest - "Obamacare".
  and a bunch of the libertarians.
  The ones who aren't more upset about all the wars he's started. OK, perhaps there are a dozen, somewhere in the US.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
14. Re:Petition is worthless by dkf · 2012-07-20 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is, that doesn't seem to be true. 4 out of 5 Americans support the use of full body scanners.
  [...]
  There have been other polls about the same thing with slightly different results, but they all show a significant majority favor their use - such as this one with 2/3 in support: [...]
  Americans value the illusion very highly, and will trade almost any amount of freedom for it.
  The problem with polls is that they are extremely susceptible to problems in the framing of the question; if you know what you're doing when you write the questions, you can get any answer you want. ("Do you want to be blown up by arab terrorists or do you support scanners in airports that prevent such terrible things from happening?") What's more, polls are easily skewed if the sampling isn't representative of the nation, and it's common to give the figures while omitting to mention what proportion of people polled didn't express an opinion. There's also the classic problem of the unreported sample size; ask too few, and you can get a misleading answer purely by chance even if you're not trying to be intellectually dishonest.
  Polling is hard if you want to get proper, truthful answers out...
  [I'm making no specific allegations about these particular polls. Just... don't believe everything you read, OK?]
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
15. Re:Petition is worthless by Toad-san · 2012-07-20 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  ALL the responses I've received to whitehouse.gov petitions have been useless, just blowing us off. I had hopes of that site (like many hopes I had with Obama in general), but that's not going to happen. It's just an outlet to vent; it will make no difference.
  And DHS will just continue to do what the hell it wants to do, laws notwithstanding.
Even the Italians got rid of them ... by acidfast7 · 2012-07-19 05:17 · Score: 1, Funny

...the freakin' Italians ... bought them and ditched them, because they were found to be worthless (in terms of security value).
Cue circus sounds ...
Show "typical nuclear American" family participating in security theater...
Exit left with a loud sucking sound ... zoom out slightly to show two chins and a 48oz cola ... and a "man, I feel much better after getting my shoes back on after going through security."
1. Re:Even the Italians got rid of them ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 06:14 · Score: 0
  
  Don't be ridiculous.
  A 48oz cola would never make it through security.
2. Re:Even the Italians got rid of them ... by acidfast7 · 2012-07-19 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  Bought after security ... doh!
3. Re:Even the Italians got rid of them ... by prehistoricman5 · 2012-07-19 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  I've seen someone walk through security with a nearly full bottle of iced tea. He had forgotten he had it on him and the screeners never even caught it.
  
  --
  Fuck Beta
4. Re:Even the Italians got rid of them ... by Githaron · 2012-07-19 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  I have a friend who forgot she had a pair of large scissors in her art supplies box in her bag. The TSA missed them. As her bag went through the scanner, they even laughed at her expense when they saw her myriad of junk and huge wad of keys that was sitting on top of the box. Is that all it takes? A wad of keys?
Seriously? by yt8znu35 · 2012-07-19 05:24 · Score: 1

I'm all for the effort succeeding, but it won't. No one is going to create an account on whitehouse.gov and sign a petition that runs contrary to what the security state has in mind. "You're either with us, or your with the terrorists." Under the next administration, that member list is going to become a government shitlist. No thanks.

Ask yourself this: What good can come of getting an account on whitehouse.gov?
1. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  Ask yourself this: What good can come of getting an account on whitehouse.gov?
  Lots of spam from whitehouse.gov!!
2. Re:Seriously? by yt8znu35 · 2012-07-19 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  May His Noodley Goodness forgive me for using your in place of you're.
3. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 05:59 · Score: 0
  
  May His Noodley Goodness also forgive you for forgetting to use quotation marks in your request for forgiveness.
Re:Sure, Sign the Petition for some "Extra Screeni by SirBitBucket · 2012-07-19 05:25 · Score: 1

Just put your name down on the list of travelers who get the full Monty of invasive security theatre, er... screening... I hear the TSA has hired a new batch of proctologists just for the petition signers...
Seriously, I would be a little concerned. Since they create those no-fly lists, etc. from all over the place, even the internet...
Another imperial move by Bush by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 05:43 · Score: 0

Oh, wait.....
you thought this was a democracy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 06:28 · Score: 0

wrong, bitch. the scanners stay.
Body scanners violate EU/US and US/Canada treaties by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 06:52 · Score: 0

My problem is that the body scanners not only violate my American rights within my own country, but they violate the international data privacy treaties we signed with other nations.
Time to pull the plug on this Make Work For Scanner Manufacturers farce.
No by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 07:18 · Score: 1

*I* get the government *YOU* deserve.
If the stupid people did not vastly outnumber the smart people, this might not be true. But since the stupid people are the overwhelming majority, the government THEY deserve is imposed upon the rest of us.
1. Re:No by Dishevel · 2012-07-19 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  We put up with it.
  We have decided that it is not as of yet worth the personal cost to demand change.
  When we do it will.
  Till then it is only us who can make the change. Till we do we get what we deserve.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
There's also a petition to shorten copyright terms by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 07:19 · Score: 0

...to 28 years. Might as well sign that too:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/support-restoration-copyrights-their-original-duration-28-years/Z7skGfKk
Re: cost of direct force by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 07:19 · Score: 0

If instead of this hi-tech stuff why not provide an armed guard on
the filght deck & some number of "hidden" armed guards in the passenger
area. use dogs & metal dectors in the terminal.
How long would it take for the added personal costs to
exceed the capital cost of the current TSA equipment?
I've signed Whitehouse petitions... by BMOC · 2012-07-19 07:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

I haven't seen Obama or any of his administration comment on one of them. From the beginning they seemed to just be punting on most issues outside of health care. There was a huge swell of signers for the anti PIPA/SOPA petition, it easily hit the required number to get a response from Obama, but their reply was effectively a total dismissal of the issue.
Pure politics, the Democrats are just as afraid as the Republicans of standing up for a true human rights issue when they fear their big money supporters might be upset. Make no mistake, internet freedom is a human rights issue.

--
I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
Because by tizan · 2012-07-19 08:11 · Score: 1

When something bad happens ...we all cower and agree to whatever the government does in the name of protecting the country...remember 2002/2003/2004....
no ?
.
Sounds right, though by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-19 08:43 · Score: 0

Since 9 out of 10 Americans are damn stupid, 4 out of 5 supporting the scanners doesn't seem unreasonable.
Cannot sign petition by Tora · 2012-07-19 10:02 · Score: 1

I would love to sign the petition on whitehouse.gov, but there is no chance I'll give that presidency my info. Next thing I know I'll be bombarded by political info I don't care about.

--
tora
1. Re:Cannot sign petition by mianne · 2012-07-19 14:41 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Oh I signed it... Get my name on the "No-Fly" list? Heck with that, I put myself on it 5 years ago before the body scanners were put in place. I've only flown once since the implementation of the TSA, and that was only due to winning a free trip to DIsneyworld.. My husband was screened for explosives both ways for having the audacity to be confined to a wheelchair. They throw away the bottle of soda I forgot in my carry-on on our way home, which also had my husband screened for so long (even without the "SSSS" designation) that we nearly missed our flight back from Orlando that we arrived over an hour in advance for.
  The last vacation we took, and probably the next few; was/will be to places we can readily access in my car. Yes, I know I'm far more likely to be injured/killed driving than by flying. I have no fear of flying, but I refuse to submit to the modern security apparatus, to be irradiated or groped. I've never been a "frequent flyer" but for about 25 years or so, I flew about 2-3 roundtrips a year. We both have medical conditions which do not need to be exacerbated while causing us humiliation at the groping hands of some mouthbreathers hired off a pizza box. If and when some sanity returns to the airport screening process, we'll be more than happy to fly regularly again. But about the only thing I can see that will get me on a plane today would be the death or serious illness of my parents/siblings.
  As to being bombarded by political info? Rand Paul probably already figured out that was not such a bright idea when I and many other /.'ers signed his anti-TSA petition. Thankfully my unsubscribe request was eventually honored, but that's what spam filters are for anyway. As to the risk to the current administration? Assuming a human has ever actually read all the posts I've made here and other sites, (which I'm certain have been collected and correlated automatically into several private and government databases anyway) then I think they can safely conclude that President Obama will not get my vote again, but Mitt Romney won't receive my vote either. I still don't know who'll I'll vote for, or if I'll just write in "None of the Above" but until I find a candidate from any party whose platform even approximately matches my views which run the gamut between conservative, liberal, and libertarian; no one's getting my vote for president.
  So for any aspiring presidential, congressional, and other politicians who seek my vote; these are some of my core issues and beliefs:
  1) Defund the TSA, maintain common sense procedures such as reinforced cockpit doors, metal detectors, and canine patrols. Also improve the vetting and screening of airport employees, vendors, and contractors.
  2) End the "War on Drugs." Tax and regulate cannaboids, amphetamines, hallucinogens, and narcotics much the way alcohol, tobacco, and/or prescription drugs are at present. This will greatly reduce the power and violence of Mexican drug cartels, and reduce gang violence in America, and reduce our overall prison population. Taxes raised from this legalization should go to real education of the dangers of drugs, and not "Reefer Madness" style scare tactics. Taxes raised should also go to counseling, detox and rehabilitation efforts to those adversely affected by drug abuse.
  3) Raise taxes on the wealthy and the middle class alike. Our debt cannot be controlled by spending cuts alone, we also have to raise revenue broadly. It will take someone willing to advocate such a politically unpopular decision. On this issue alone, someone like Laurence Kotlikoff would win my vote, but there's little information on what else he stands for, and not all that is, is in sync with my views. But I have to give him credit for making an unpopular but necessary step his chief selling point.
  4) Improve education for all. By this I don't mean inflexible testing standards such as NCLB. But investing heavily in education from preschool to advanced degrees,
  
  --
  Javascript, cookies, flash, and ActiveX must be enabled in order to view this sig.
Reagan vs National Airport by Zinho · 2012-07-19 10:05 · Score: 1

That's National Airport, I have no idea why people insist on calling it after some Alzheimer victim.
Perhaps because the airport's full, official name is "Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport"? Has been since February 6, 1998 when President Clinton signed a law changing its name?
So, what is it; are you just trolling, ignorant, or feeling betrayed that a Democrat President would honor a Republican?

--
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
Re: cost of direct force by ThatsMyNick · 2012-07-19 10:41 · Score: 1

They exists. They are called air marshals.
Re: cost of direct force by RatherBeAnonymous · 2012-07-19 13:34 · Score: 1

They can't retain enough air marshals to do the job. Most people won't keep a job where they have irregular hours, are cramped up in a coach airline seat every other day and can not reliably get home to be with their families, can't maintain a reasonable sleep or workout schedule, and have to eat crappy airline food all the time. Reportedly, the agency is also horribly run, as is attested to by former air marshals.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500202_162-6162291.html
http://www.propublica.org/article/air-marshals-dogged-by-discrimination-complaints-in-field-offices-201

It would be cheaper, easier, and provide more consistent coverage to allow passengers to carry concealed weapons.
Even with enough signatures by destruk · 2012-07-19 16:38 · Score: 0

The white house still reserves the right to deny whatever the petition demands. They've done it before.
There's plenty by dbIII · 2012-07-20 00:11 · Score: 1

The monster than is the TSA (and it's mother Homeland Security) is a major instrument in channelling the money of the US taxpayer into the pockets of powerful lobbyists in addition to supplying welfare to large numbers of people that might otherwise be doing a more difficult job. Killing it off would be political suicide at this point while keeping it going is a way to pretend to demonstrate some sort of care about terrorism without doing something more difficult.
Personally I think you should kill off the monsters and replace them with some sort of smaller but actually professional law enforcement (the way Israel, UK, etc dealt with terrorist threats), but it's not my country, and whatever Party in the US that does it would be painted as "siding with the terrorists" by the other, and be doomed at the ballot box for a decade or more. The Republicans might get away with it, but since a lot of that TSA money is going into pockets they like they probably would never try (apart from Ron Paul who never gets to see money from those sources anyway).
What's different? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 12:58 · Score: 0

They are already ignoring one court order, what makes you think this one will be any different?
Not NECESSARILY a fool. . . by Salgak1 · 2012-07-21 10:16 · Score: 1

Anonymous Coward in name and in deed.
Mayhaps. . .and mayhaps not. Take the example of James Vandersloot. First, identified as a donor to Republican causes in general, and Mitt Romney in particular. Then, he finds a political operative digging for dirt about his divorce. Now he's being audited by both the IRS and Department of Labor. This COULD all be a coincidence.
But it's not the first time someone has been "targeted" for harassment after offering an opinion or making a contribution. Which make the ability to express an opinion without providing full personal information. . . prudent.