Slashdot Mirror


DHS Gets Public Comment, Whether It Wants It Or Not

OverTheGeicoE writes "The motion to force DHS to start its public comment period is still working its way through the court (DHS: 'We're not stonewalling!', EPIC: 'Yes, you are!'). While we wait for the decision, Cato Institute's Jim Harper points out another way for the public to comment on body scanners, tsacomment.com. Even before this site existed, of course, the government was receiving public comment anyway in the form of passenger complaint letters, which they buried in their files. Even so, the public can get a chance to view those comments as the result of Freedom of Information Act requests. An FOIA request about pat-downs by governmentattic.org yielded hundreds of pages of letters to the government from 2010, including frequent reports of pat-down induced PTSD and sexual abuse trauma."

228 comments

  1. Popular vote by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I believe I speak for many Americans when I say my comment is "Go away."

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Popular vote by Desler · · Score: 2

      You actually speak for a minority of Americans. Most people love the security theater.

    2. Re:Popular vote by firex726 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Many yes, but far too many feel that "If that's the price we have to pay for safety, then so be it".
      Which of course has SO much wrong with it.

    3. Re:Popular vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citation needed]

    4. Re:Popular vote by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, you don't speak for enough. Overall satisfaction rates with the TSA are near supermajority levels. The DHS and TSA aren't going away in spite of their overt orwellian qualities.

    5. Re:Popular vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There was recent poll (on CNN I believe), that claimed people in general were satisfied with the TSA (note that some of them dont fly at all, and have never experienced the TSA, but decided to vote)

    6. Re:Popular vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Many yes, but far too many feel that "If that's the price we have to pay for safety, then so be it".

      Tinfoil mode off: Is that actually true, or are these just the people they show on TV whenever a camera shows up?

      Tinfoil mode on: Maybe it wasn't true at one point, but after 11 years of man-on-the-street coverage like that, "papers please" went from a cruel joke about In Soviet Russia, to people genuinely that a requirement to present one's papers on demand to government officials is a perfectly acceptable and normal state of affairs, "as long as it keeps us safe"

    7. Re:Popular vote by X0563511 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      --
      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...
    8. Re:Popular vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they'll ignore him.

      And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and they won't listen to either of them.

      And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people posting a comment on TSAComment.com 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 posting a comment on TSAComment.com and walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement.

      And that's what it is, the Slashdot.org Anti-TSA Movement, and all you got to do to join is post a comment on TSAComment.com.

      With feeling.

    9. Re:Popular vote by seepho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People have opinions on subjects they're ignorant of? Surely you jest.

    10. Re:Popular vote by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Tinfoil mode off: Is that actually true, or are these just the people they show on TV whenever a camera shows up?

      >

      It's true. Just read the comments in the rest of this thread...

      --
      No sig today...
    11. Re:Popular vote by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

      It would be better with free popcorn. Of course, you'd never get it on the plane.

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    12. Re:Popular vote by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The majority also supported the roundup of Japanese-americans during WW2, depriving them of their liberty, property, and right to a jury trial. That doesn't make the majority's trampeling of individual rights okay, either then or now.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    13. Re:Popular vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't call me Shirley.

    14. Re:Popular vote by OldGunner · · Score: 1

      AC should have credited Arlo Guthrie and the anti-war ballad Alice's Restaurant.

      --
      Vietnam Veteran / Former Postal Worker -- Use Caution When Taunting!
    15. Re:Popular vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that the /. signal-to-troll ratio is fairly near 0, I wouldn't take posts here to be difinitive, proportional, or even minority representations of reality.

    16. Re:Popular vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why do you say they are ignorant? TSA is responsible for making sure that terrorists don't crash airplanes into our office buildings and work places. You don't have to fly to know that there haven't been any planes flown into office buildings in some time in the US. Now, I do fly a few times a year - and the security theater is pathetic. I'm about to fly again in two weeks and am not looking forward to it. However from the point of view of "average person who doesn't fly" - why would they not be satisfied that someone seems to be keeping planes from falling from the sky? It might be the same in principle as the old "tiger preventing rock", but to them it must be working.

    17. Re:Popular vote by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      The SA wouldn't be so bad if they just operated in airports (which was the 9/11 attack originated), but they are expanding their domain to other areas. Buses. Train stations. Malls, post offices, social security centers, public parks, GOP and DNC conventions. Also along highways in the 100-mile border zone and in Tennessee.

      "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance..... He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power..... He has deprived us of a right to trial by juries of our peers." - Thomas Jefferson, declaration of independence

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    18. Re:Popular vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      You say that, yet this rock I have had as many recorded successes against terrorists crashing airplanes into our office buildings as the TSA has.

      It's at least a MAGIC rock.

    19. Re:Popular vote by kelemvor4 · · Score: 2

      There was recent poll (on CNN I believe), that claimed people in general were satisfied with the TSA (note that some of them dont fly at all, and have never experienced the TSA, but decided to vote)

      I also heard that people lobbying against gun rights in America don't own any guns themselves...

    20. Re:Popular vote by Dan667 · · Score: 2

      I have yet to see anyone thrilled with the tsa treating them like a criminal

    21. Re:Popular vote by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Why do you hate America and love Communist Russia version 2.0 so very much?

      The TSA is unconstitutional.

      Period.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    22. Re:Popular vote by schlachter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The majority is often wrong. To see this, you only have to look to slavery, segregation, anti-semitism, the Iraq war, and Nazi politics among other things.

      In times like this you need strong clear leadership from the few in power.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    23. Re:Popular vote by seepho · · Score: 2

      I didn't mean to imply people are ignorant when it comes to knowing if airplanes have flown into buildings. Much like people who believe in your rock are ignorant of what actually keeps tigers away, I'd be willing to bet a large set of people who do not fly are ignorant of what people who are dissatisfied with the TSA are upset about.

      But just to be safe, I want to buy your rock.

    24. Re:Popular vote by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 4, Informative

      While I completely agree that this was an outrage.

      We didn't have any Japanese attacks on American soil after that happened.

      So maybe it helped? Or maybe it was the huge war we waged on the Japanese after Pearl Harbor.

      As they say, hindsight is 20/20.

      Not true. In fact, fire balloon attacks almost took out the atomic bomb development here on the Pacific coast. There are other events, including the Aleutian islands and various events up and down the coast in the US.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    25. Re:Popular vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) The majority are stupid.
      2) The minority are corrupt.

      Therefore, humans are incapable of self-governance.

    26. Re:Popular vote by realityimpaired · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I love America, actually. Not overly fond of Americans (the stereotypical kind, not the real ones), nor the politics, but as a country it's actually quite nice.

      I still don't travel there, though. I used to. A lot. But I haven't flown through US airspace since the TSA started with the whole backscatter x-ray system and gropings. I've read far too many stories about things they've missed (remember Adam Savage's discussion about how they missed a 12" saw blade?), and it doesn't take a civil rights activist to decide that being forced to allow a high school dropout to look at a naked picture of you to get on a plane is an invasion of privacy. I won't even drive to the US, even though large parts of the eastern seaboard are within a day's drive of here, because I've heard about them thinking of installing those machines at land crossings and ports of entry, too. It's not a lot of money they've lost from me, but I know a fairly large number of people who live outside the US who won't touch it with a 10-foot pole any more... you have to wonder how badly this is impacting the US tourism industry. *gasp* perish the thought, but I'm spending the same money I used to spend in the US in Cuba or Mexico instead....

      There was a time when the TSA actually tried doing things in a sane way. I've had dealings with them at airports before they started with the backscatter x-ray nonsense, and most of the officers I dealt with seemed genuinely interested in doing a good job making things safer. Admittedly, the last time I dealt with them was at the airport in Dayton, OH, but my experiences with them at airports like Dayton, or Bangor, ME, or smaller airports like that was actually pretty good. I have to wonder if the people who think, generally, that they're doing a good job today are basing that opinion on experiences like mine, which were both many years ago, and at airports that were small enough to be able to actually hire good people. I don't think, now, that they're doing a good job, but they used to give the impression that they were.... if you still hold on to that opinion of them, you must not be reading the same news that the rest of us are.

    27. Re:Popular vote by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      Most people on Slashdot are either too young to get the reference, or would get the reference without needing it to be credited like you.... I'm guessing they didn't put you in Group W, then? ;)

    28. Re:Popular vote by LocutusMIT · · Score: 2

      *thinks for a minute*

      Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

    29. Re:Popular vote by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Got yer citation right here, bub...

      98.47% of the voters do indeed love security theater.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    30. Re:Popular vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No Japanese attacks on US soil after the people of Japanese lineage were rounded up?

      You are wrong, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleutian_Islands#World_War_II

    31. Re:Popular vote by ducomputergeek · · Score: 2

      I was flipping through the channels a couple nights ago and came across a Piers Morgan Tonight show (there was a guest host) with three or four women on the panel and they happen to be discussing airport security. And 3 of the 4 of them outright said, "But this is what is required to keep us safe, therefore I full support having to take my shoes off etc.."

      I sat there a bit taken back realizing that probably this really is the view that most people probably hold. I'm not sure why I expected any different.

      After 9/11 there were things done that made sense: i.e. armored cockpit doors. Having to stow sharp pointed objects in checked luggage, okay I can accept that as well. But almost everything else is just theatre, just as George Carlin pointed out BEFORE 9/11 about bombs on airplanes.

      Furthermore everything changed for any would be hijackers after 9/11 as well, because now passengers know that sitting and doing nothing will no longer increase their chances for survival: better to go down fighting. Look at the incidents since 9/11 on planes, pretty much all of them have been stopped by OTHER PASSENGERS ON THE PLANE.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    32. Re:Popular vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People have opinions on subjects they're ignorant of? Surely you jest.

      Bet the majority of slashdotters squirmed in their seat after reading that.

    33. Re:Popular vote by rfrenzob · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Look at the /. story from 8/10 Poll Finds Americans Think the TSA Is 'Doing A Good Job'

    34. Re:Popular vote by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

      Agree on smaller airports. But the TSA farce at larger airports like SEA and SFO just makes me end up driving instead.

      When I add in the time spent in stupid security lines that don't even stop 1/5th of terrorist attack tests, I just fail to see the point. The Security Theater does not make us safer, and as a former Army Sgt with counter-terrorism and explosives experience, it drives me batty what a waste and insanity it all is.

      Just for fun I like to sneak a few items on board each time I fly that shouldn't be there. They never find them. Ever.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    35. Re:Popular vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, imprisoning your own citizens prevents foreign powers from attacking. Riiiiight.

    36. Re:Popular vote by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 2

      I blame the US educational system for not teaching me of this. Wonder if we can ever get around to really learning true history in the US.

    37. Re:Popular vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you are okay with this? Just checking.

    38. Re:Popular vote by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      You can find a lot of this online in PBS history specials, or on UW TV.

      The History Channel sometimes rebroadcasts some of it.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    39. Re:Popular vote by Type44Q · · Score: 2

      The majority also supported the roundup of Japanese-americans during WW2, depriving them of their liberty, property, and right to a jury trial. That doesn't make the majority's trampeling of individual rights okay, either then or now.

      Does anybody here know why they were rounded up? I'm embarrassed to admit (as someone raised in Japan) that I thought the round-up was a simple knee-jerk reaction to Pearl Harbor. Rather, even our gullible, culturally-clueless 40's era forebears could obviously sense that there was something extremely different about culturally-homogenous Japanese society; even 2nd and 3rd-generation Japanese-Americans demonstrated that they weren't immune to its conditioning effect.

    40. Re:Popular vote by Type44Q · · Score: 2

      Yes, imprisoning your own citizens prevents foreign powers from attacking. Riiiiight.

      Can you believe some of these people don't drown when it rains??

    41. Re:Popular vote by ipxodi · · Score: 1

      Nicely Done.

      --
      load "windows7" ,8,1
    42. Re:Popular vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coming soon on "ANCIENT ALIENS" ... Greek guy with funny hair and long name talks about the technology used to create fire balloons ...

    43. Re:Popular vote by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Only if you assume that the few in power are morally better than the majority. But since they're drawn from the same pool, and the process of obtaining power selects against the wise and the kind, you can be assured that they are not.

      We do not give power to the majority because the majority is wise. We do so to dilute the influence of individual corruption. If a king rules in a way that only benefits the king, you can be assured that most of his subjects are suffering. If the majority rules in a way that only benefits the majority, then at least 50% of the people are happy.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    44. Re:Popular vote by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      That you don't fly doesn't make you ignorant of the subject. In fact if you don't fly you are far more likely (assuming you are a selfish prick) to support ridiculous security routines for flying. After all they don't affect you, but a plane crashing into your office certainly does. Now you might want them to spend the money on more effective measures that are more likely to reduce yor chances of said plane crashing into you, of course.

    45. Re:Popular vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay

    46. Re:Popular vote by girlintraining · · Score: 2

      Many yes, but far too many feel that "If that's the price we have to pay for safety, then so be it".

      Not as many as people think.

      It's all in how the survey question is stated. If you ask people "Do you support airport security?" you'll find overwhelming support. Obviously. Ask people if they support the TSA irradiating its citizens, "raping" them with invasive pat-downs -- whether they agree with those security procedures, and you'll get much lower response. It's like the IRS: Most people acknowledge they have to pay their taxes. Few agree with the collection tactics the IRS uses, or the lack of judicial oversight.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    47. Re:Popular vote by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I'd be willing to bet a large set of people who do not fly are ignorant of what people who are dissatisfied with the TSA are upset about.

      You don't even have to recognize the security theater for what it is in order to dislike having to choose between being photographed naked or groped in order to fly. You can think that the TSA is doing a good job of protecting public safety at a macro level and still hate what they're doing at an individual level. It takes a bit of mental gymnastics for most folks, but it certainly isn't all that unlikely.

      Either way, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who has not flown recently should have absolutely no voice in the matter. In fact, unaffected parties should never have any say in anything, whether it is straight people denying gays the right to marry, white men denying blacks and women the right to vote, or non-fliers deciding on what security measures fliers should have to endure. There's no difference except in degree.

      --

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

    48. Re:Popular vote by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      And we have Constitutional limits on power to prevent tyranny of the majority. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be working so well as of late, mostly because we have a Supreme Court that largely sees the Constitution as a piece of paper rather than as a crucial set of limits on government.

      --

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

    49. Re:Popular vote by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      That you don't fly doesn't make you ignorant of the subject. In fact if you don't fly you are far more likely (assuming you are a selfish prick) to support ridiculous security routines for flying. After all they don't affect you, but a plane crashing into your office certainly does. Now you might want them to spend the money on more effective measures that are more likely to reduce yor chances of said plane crashing into you, of course.

      Not sure I can agree with that - I myself have never been in a plane bigger than a single-engine Cessna, yet I still see the egregious violation of our civil liberties that is the TSA for what it is.

      Personally, I'd like to see how the poll was conducted (online or your standard call-landlines-during-the-workday method), and the general demographics of those polled.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    50. Re:Popular vote by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      The majority also supported the roundup of Japanese-americans during WW2, depriving them of their liberty, property, and right to a jury trial.

      Jim Crow laws, too.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    51. Re:Popular vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The TSA doesn't do anything to keep planes from crashing into your building. The locks on the cabin doors do that.

    52. Re:Popular vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is just a piece of paper with words on it. This is why the real threat to liberty is the people who treat the Constitution as the definition of morality. That means they can turn off their souls and blind their minds to what they do, as long as they find a justification for that fits their view of it.

      The Constitution isn't crucial, honest and responsible people who make themselves accountable are. If you don't have them, then the trust you might have in the Constitution is going to be abused.

    53. Re:Popular vote by residieu · · Score: 2

      They got tired of being the Word War II network and decided instead they wanted to be the ghosts & aliens channel.

    54. Re:Popular vote by painandgreed · · Score: 4, Interesting

      We didn't have any Japanese attacks on American soil after that happened.

      Not true. "On the nights of June 21 and 22, 1942, a Japanese submarine fired 17 shells at Fort Stevens, making it the only military installation in the continental United States to receive hostile fire during World War II (the oil fields in Santa Barbara, California that were also shelled by the Japanese, was not considered a military installation)." Santa Barbara could be said to happen before, but the Fort Stevens attack happened after.

    55. Re:Popular vote by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 0

      I have been proven wrong again. I'm used to it. Again, I blame the US educational system. The only thing I was was taguht about WWII was the Germans were bad and we were good and saved the world by nuking Japan.

    56. Re:Popular vote by crakbone · · Score: 2

      Less than that. I know of two incidents with airplanes being flown into buildings or stolen since the TSA came on the job. http://www.nycaviation.com/2012/07/did-someone-try-to-steal-a-skywest-plane-in-utah-last-night/#.UFJLL41lTng http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jan/06/news/mn-20751

    57. Re:Popular vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the round-up was a simple knee-jerk reaction to Pearl Harbor

      That's exactly what it was.

    58. Re:Popular vote by JonySuede · · Score: 1
      Having flown to Nashville last month, I qualify!
      I was better treated by the States
      In Germany, I waited in line, when through a metal scanner, then for no apparent reason the guy with the gun actually put a glove to touch my balls, only to let me pass through another scanner.
      In the States, I waited in line, went through the same scanner, to be told, welcome to the United States of America sir.

      At first I was begging to suspect that it was overly reported by the media. But last time I watched them during a connection and it seems that they target American citizen and a sheriff located a little bit beyond sight to watch for reaction so I am beginning to suspect that they do this on purpose. But I don't have enough samples to know if it's in intelligence technique, if it is by malice or simply under-sampling.

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    59. Re:Popular vote by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

      Perhaps someone should point out that anyone who can afford to charter a private jet gets to bypass security entirely, and can bring as much uninspected luggage with them as they can fit on the jet. Only the little people need to have their rights flagrantly denied by the government; important people (i.e. those who are wealthy) and terrorists (at least those who can afford the cost of chartering a private jet) get to bypass the process if they choose to do so.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    60. Re:Popular vote by slick7 · · Score: 1

      I believe I speak for many Americans when I say my comment is "Go away."

      I believe, "Om".

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    61. Re:Popular vote by reboot246 · · Score: 4, Funny

      You need to tune in again. The History Channel is now predominately the "pawn shop" channel.

      Discovery is the weird jobs channel.
      A&E is the law enforcement channel.
      HGTV is the real estate channel.

      It has all turned to crap.

    62. Re:Popular vote by idontgno · · Score: 2

      The US has been pretty damn fortunate to be able to fight its wars on other peoples' land. It distorts the perspective, if you think about it. Ask an 80-year-old Russian about the Great Patriotic War. Ask my mom about hiding in the woods as B-29s burned her home town to the ground.

      I wonder sometimes if our eagerness to slap leather and come out blazing has something to do with the fact that we won't have to clean up our own damage when the shooting is done. "Collateral damage" is easier to tolerate as long as it's someone else being damaged (or killed, to be perfectly candid).

      But yes. Japan did attack the US mainland, and certainly did a job on our overseas holdings (Philippines, Hawaii, Alaska, etc.). But the attacks were never above the level of raids, with the exception of the worthless occupation of a few Aleutian islands (perhaps traumatic to the few locals, but not very effective and contested robustly enough to never develop beyond that point). Our island-hopping campaign reclaimed our territories right quick (with the exception of the Philippines) and shortly after that we were on the Japanese side of the 50-yard line, as it were, for the rest of the fight.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    63. Re:Popular vote by slippyblade · · Score: 2

      Coming INTO the airport is way different than trying to go OUT of it. In the States it is actually illegal to go half-way through security then change your mind and leave. It's illegal to argue with the TSA. Your luggage will be taken from you into another room (out of sight) and then you are interrogated if your luggage has, at any point, been out of your sight. There have been multiple cases of TSA agents stealing stuff from luggage. Let's not even discuss broken colostomy bags, forced ingestion of breast milk, or pat downs of 5 year olds in body casts.

    64. Re:Popular vote by akboss · · Score: 1

      Yes, imprisoning your own citizens prevents foreign powers from attacking. Riiiiight.

      Can you believe some of these people don't drown when it rains??

      Mod this one up.

      --
      "Remember, politicians and diapers should be changed often and for the same reason."
    65. Re:Popular vote by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 1

      You are completely correct. the united states wouldn't fight nearly as many wars if they were fought on our home soil.

    66. Re:Popular vote by macshome · · Score: 1

      At university the joke was always that the H stood for Hitler. That was a long time ago now though.

    67. Re:Popular vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people on Slashdot are either too young to get the reference, or would get the reference without needing it to be credited like you.... I'm guessing they didn't put you in Group W, then? ;)

      I said "Shrink. I wanna kill. I wanna, I wanna to kill. I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead, burnt bodies. I mean kill! Kill! Kill! Kill!" I started jumpin' up and down yellin' "Kill! Kill! Kill!" And he started jumpin' up and down with me yellin' "Kill! Kill! Kill!" And the Sergeant came over, pinned a medal on me, led me down the hall and said "You're our boy!"
      --Excerpted from a successful TSA employment interview

    68. Re:Popular vote by zoloto · · Score: 1
      Roger, Roger

      What's your vector, Victor?

    69. Re:Popular vote by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      So you are saying that discovering a new species of 100% honest and selfless humanoids is what is crucial? The real threat to liberty are the Authoritarians who want everybody else to follow rules that they get to make up and people who put all their trust in the government, thinking "government good, corporations bad" when the truth is that the government, corporations, and most people are bad. As far as morality, doesn't everyone have their own definition of right and wrong? Liberty is about protecting people from the forces that are most likely to hurt them. Corporations are evil concentrations of power and greed and take-whatever-you-can-grab morality. Governments are exactly the same, but they have more power, and the kind of power they possess is that of violence and murder and total control over everyone's lives.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    70. Re:Popular vote by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      That wasn't why. Imprisoning thousands of your own citizens because of something 3 of them did? Because 3 Japanese Americans aided an enemy (they didn't even kill or hurt anyone themselves) that explained why the US rounded up everyone of Japanese descent and put them in prison camps?

      No, it was a simple knee jerk reaction. Some combination of racism and cowardice and a complete disregard for what this country stood for. It would be like imprisoning every Muslim or Arab American because of 9/11. I'm sure there are some Americans who think we should do exactly that, but people are individuals and should not be held responsible for actions taken by others just because they, or their parents/grandparents were born in the same geographical area. Human rights are human rights. Do you respect them and even fight to preserve them or do you give them up completely when they cause even the slightest danger or inconvenience?

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    71. Re:Popular vote by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Because 3 Japanese Americans aided an enemy (they didn't even kill or hurt anyone themselves) that explained why the US rounded up everyone of Japanese descent and put them in prison camps?

      No, it was a simple knee jerk reaction. Some combination of racism and cowardice and a complete disregard for what this country stood for. It would be like imprisoning every Muslim or Arab American because of 9/11. I'm sure there are some Americans who think we should do exactly that, but people are individuals and should not be held responsible for actions taken by others just because they, or their parents/grandparents were born in the same geographical area. Human rights are human rights. Do you respect them and even fight to preserve them or do you give them up completely when they cause even the slightest danger or inconvenience?

      You sound confused. I very much doubt that you'll find a single historian anywhere who would argue that what happened was even remotely appropriate... but it certainly sounds as if that's what you're arguing against. Discussing how a critical event influenced another event isn't the same as claiming the first event somehow serves as a justification for the second...

    72. Re:Popular vote by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      You could, but you aren't allowed more than 3oz of coke to wash it down.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    73. Re:Popular vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, you just need to make an effort towards such integrity yourself rather than subsuming the responsibility to what somebody else wrote on a piece of paper.

      The real threat to liberty continues to be the people who look for shortcuts and excuses for their own behavior. And it doesn't matter whether they appeal to the Constitution, the Bible or the writings of the Glorious Leader.

      That's a detail, not a critical matter. Though I will point how many libertarian ideals are exploited by those who cloak themselves in it.

    74. Re:Popular vote by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      So you are saying that Japanese Americans were involved in the attack on Pearl Harbour. So 'er' they trained to fly torpedo and dive bombers, as well as man military ships in the US, prior to joining the Japanese Navy because 'er' 'um' Japan was too primitive and backward to be able to do so on it's own. Of course who could expect the attack would be so successful because the Americans could be so incompetent and so readily mismanage an attack, given the level of warning they had and the conditions of the time ie the world was not a peace but pretty actively at war at the time.

      Of course why weren't the German-Americans and the Italian Americans also arrested, surely it wasn't colour at play here. Of course seriously why would a surprise attack be looked at any differently from a heads up we are going to start murdering your citizens attack. It like fine tuning psychopathy so that torturing people to death is not as bad as torturing them to death and eating them.

      As for the mess the DHS has gotten itself into with the transport security, everyone knows exactly why they are holding off any public review for as long as possible, give security freaks a free hand and guess what they'll well and truly suck, it's in their nature and, that without adding scum of the earth lobbyists and corrupt politicians into the mix.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    75. Re:Popular vote by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      I dnt have military experience, but I too found ways of sneaking things through security. Despite liquids being incredibly dangerous, I use a rather ingenious method for getting it through security. I leave the bottle in my carry-on bag. I only hope that terrorists don't discover this technique.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    76. Re:Popular vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. I decided not to visit the US again back when they started demanding fingerprints from non-nationals entering the country.

    77. Re:Popular vote by Slayer · · Score: 1

      > Agree on smaller airports. But the TSA farce at larger airports like SEA and SFO just ....

      The story with that guy who got denied his flight for wearing an anti-TSA T-shirt happened at one of these smaller airports IIRC.

    78. Re:Popular vote by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      There was recent poll (on CNN I believe), that claimed people in general were satisfied with the TSA (note that some of them dont fly at all, and have never experienced the TSA, but decided to vote)

      Didn't that poll get re-examined and found that the majority of people who were satisfied with TSA did not fly? That also means they likely had nearly zero interaction with TSA. And didn't that same re-examination find that frequent flyers were extremely dissatified with TSA?

      Just saying.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    79. Re:Popular vote by residieu · · Score: 1

      Is the Science channel still showing more Science Fiction than SyFy?

    80. Re:Popular vote by UltimaBuddy · · Score: 1

      You're right! It's never too early to start drinking.

    81. Re:Popular vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, I won't.

      -Shirley.

    82. Re:Popular vote by Mass+Overkiller · · Score: 0

      +1

    83. Re:Popular vote by Mass+Overkiller · · Score: 0

      Could you say that the 9/11 attacks were fought on American soil?

    84. Re:Popular vote by Mass+Overkiller · · Score: 0

      It was actually the Delta airlines PILOT who denied access to the flight, not the TSA. Point taken however.

  2. A little help ... by jest3r · · Score: 5, Funny

    DHS = Department of Homeland Security
    FOIA = Freedom of Information Act
    PTSD = Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
    EPIC = The most overused word ever, next to fail. for even more asshole points, use them together to form "epic fail." (quoted from Urban Dictionary)

    1. Re:A little help ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Informative

      Or, you know, the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

      Just saying.

      They've been around since '94, before 'epic' became such an overused word.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:A little help ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      So in other words, they were EPIC before EPIC was EPIC.

    3. Re:A little help ... by egr · · Score: 1

      Rated funny? This should be rated "Informative". And the news posters should really learn to decrypt the abbreviations on the first occurrence.

    4. Re:A little help ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      epic comment bro

    5. Re:A little help ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Close: EPIC was EPIC before EPIC was EPIC.

    6. Re:A little help ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha! I though they were talking abut El Paso Intelligence Center from back in my Coast Guard days.

  3. What good is public comment by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    when your comments are completely ignored?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:What good is public comment by jerpyro · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What good is public comment when 90% of the country disagrees with you and thinks that the TSA is legitimate protection?

      Does our collective five-year-old psyche want its' security blanket? Yes.
      Unfortunate? Yes.
      Can we educate people that the TSA is an ineffective waste of money? No.
      We haven't even succeeded in teaching Kansas that Gorillas and Humans share a similar genealogical lineage.

    2. Re:What good is public comment by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It provides the illusion of legitimate democracy while actually effecting nothing, thus keeping the herd *quiet*

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    3. Re:What good is public comment by fortfive · · Score: 1

      I am thinking hard about this inevitable question. Part of the answer is philosophical: it does me good to take positive action, regardless of the results of my action.

      I am not so cynical or conspiratorial to think that the gubmint has become completely insensitive to the wishes of its polity. Largely insensitive perhaps, but completely, no. See their willingness to (at least claim to) convert the images from the naked scanners to a less explicit version. I think many times an issue that a few feel strongly about, when the few are truly in the right, can be transformed into a change garnering public discussion, when the few vocalize their thoughts. It takes time and sustained action, however. And there's no guarantee of success.

      There is, however, a guarantee of failure if we do not take whatever positive actions are available to us.

    4. Re:What good is public comment by Hatta · · Score: 2

      I am not so cynical or conspiratorial to think that the gubmint has become completely insensitive to the wishes of its polity.

      Why not? Convince me that this is anything but wishful thinking. Please.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:What good is public comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More importantly, it allows the malcontents to self-identify.

    6. Re:What good is public comment by schlachter · · Score: 2

      gov should protect us and our rights from the ignorant masses...not pander to them.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    7. Re:What good is public comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Let's have two classes of airline - one with TSA fully funded from ticket fees and another that has no TSA and standard security. Let the market decide.

    8. Re:What good is public comment by jerpyro · · Score: 1

      While I agree with your premise, that's unfortunately not the way that modern US politics works.
      Most people get elected just like they did for junior high school class president -- "Let's have a soda machine in the cafeteria!!"

    9. Re:What good is public comment by jerpyro · · Score: 1

      What you're suggesting is two classes of airlines, two sets of airport infrastructure, two sets of bureaucratic security policies, and the 90% being ok with the other class of airline flying over their country/buildings. I'm sure the ticket price for the unsecured airlines would be much more expensive because it would need to subsidize all of that additional infrastructure.

      "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

    10. Re:What good is public comment by acoustix · · Score: 1

      Let's have two classes of airline - one with TSA fully funded from ticket fees and another that has no TSA and standard security. Let the market decide.

      This! For the love of God, This!

      --
      "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    11. Re:What good is public comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Bloomburg, who apparently got elected with "Let's get rid of the soda machine in the cafeteria!!"

    12. Re:What good is public comment by macbeth66 · · Score: 1

      We haven't even succeeded in teaching Kansas that Gorillas and Humans share a similar genealogical lineage.

      They do? **gasp** If I were a gorilla, I would be incensed! Get your filthy hands off me! Dirty Human!

    13. Re:What good is public comment by sjames · · Score: 1

      Nah, most airports can be divided up without that, and it's not like we're doubling the capacity. If you want TSA security, flights are leaving on concourse A and B, otherwise, C and D.

      As soon as the typical traveler sees the TSA surcharge, they'll likely be fine with 'non groping'.

    14. Re:What good is public comment by schnell · · Score: 1

      gov should protect us and our rights from the ignorant masses...not pander to them.

      Sorry, pal. That's called "democracy" and it cuts both ways - the majority gets what it wants; sometimes that's you, sometimes it's not. There's a reason that they say democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other ones.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    15. Re:What good is public comment by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 2

      That would not be enough. What about people who dont fly, and are afraid of planes falling from skies into their office buildings and apartments. We need to divide the country's airspace into two. One in which TSA vetted planes fly, and another in which unvetted planes fly. People are free to live under either of the airspace.

      PS: How many do you think will live under either of the airspaces?

    16. Re:What good is public comment by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      Democracy only works when you have an educated populous.

    17. Re:What good is public comment by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      gov should protect us and our rights from the ignorant masses...not pander to them.

      Sorry, pal. That's called "democracy" and it cuts both ways - the majority gets what it wants; sometimes that's you, sometimes it's not. There's a reason that they say democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other ones.

      This is why I'm glad I live in a republic.

      Oh, wait....



      Fuck.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    18. Re:What good is public comment by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

      You forgot the rest:

      "Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote."

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    19. Re:What good is public comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So wait... does a democracy allow for a caste system? Because if not, it's certainly got some explaining to do.

    20. Re:What good is public comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your saying this only because you know they are targeting you specifically, after all, any sane person would divide the number of flights in any given 70 year period by the number of buildings in the USA and work out the odds.

      Or maybe not.

    21. Re:What good is public comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.

    22. Re:What good is public comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      until the TSA Airline bombs the non-groping airline.

    23. Re:What good is public comment by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Why do we need to split the airspace in two? The odds of a plane falling out of the sky due to some sort of malfunction is the going to the same in both groups.

    24. Re:What good is public comment by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Nothing huh? I thought so.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  4. nice bias. by geekoid · · Score: 3, Informative

    " which they buried in their files"
    If by that you mean kept on hand to refer to latter in order to properly respond and maintain a history, then correct.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:nice bias. by Hatta · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, they were readily available for public inspection in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of The Leopard".

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:nice bias. by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      It took a FOIA request to get them out into the open. Hardly what you expect from something the government is actively going to do something about.

      --
      No sig today...
  5. This is going to get ugly by Lucas123 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    On one hand, I understand their ham handed approach to national security after 9/11. It was like a fire department flooding a property to make sure the fire was out. People had and will have good justification for ridiculing their blunt instrument approach to airport security -- especially the randomness of it all. On the other hand, we have intelligent people with experience enough to know that x-ray devices and bag searches only give the illusion of security. While on a much smaller scale, look at what the Israeli's do. A very well trained security person looks deeply into your eyes and questions you. That's it. That's all it takes to give the green light or send up a red flag. And, when was the last time you heard about a hijacking in Israel? Screening passengers by observation techniques can't be thwarted, while technological safeguards can always be overcome.

    1. Re:This is going to get ugly by redmid17 · · Score: 1

      Well yeah observation techniques can be thwarted in a pretty obvious way.... don't have any behavioral tells showing and you will get through. They have training for that sort of thing you know.

    2. Re:This is going to get ugly by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      Well yeah observation techniques can be thwarted in a pretty obvious way.... don't have any behavioral tells showing and you will get through. They have training for that sort of thing you know.

      They have Xanax for that kind of thing, too.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    3. Re:This is going to get ugly by Lucas123 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It hasn't worked so far. By comparison, as you can see by the number of attempted airline bombings after 9/11 -- all thwarted by observant passengers -- and security test failures (journalists and security experts smuggling weapons past airport security) technology and pat downs have failed.

    4. Re:This is going to get ugly by tiberus · · Score: 2

      And?!?

      If someone is going to put that level of time and effort into obtaining a goal, chances are they are going to beat any system. Invasive pat downs, luggage screening, limiting liquid volume etc. aren't going to thwart any but, the unprepared. A well trained screener has about the same chance to stop someone and is faster, friendlier and has no interest in touching my genitals.

      I cringe every time I hear someone say "well it's for our safety" or something to that effect.

    5. Re:This is going to get ugly by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They don't have to beat the TSA. They can blow themselves up in the queue for the scanner and have pretty much the same effect.

      --
      No sig today...
    6. Re:This is going to get ugly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that and the armed guy onboard. That seems to help too.

    7. Re:This is going to get ugly by cpu6502 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      >>>don't have any behavioral tells showing and you will get through. They have training for that sort of thing you know.

      Training? Really??? Is that why the lockup moms in glass jails, just because she wanted to carry milk for her baby. Or why an SA agent forced a mom to demonstrate her breastfeeding device, else he would confiscate & trash it (thus costing her ~100 loss). Is that why an SA agent wrote, "Get your freak on girl" when he spied a virbrator in the luggage? Why they tackle people to the ground? Why they forced a woman into a backroom because she said, "No I don't want you sticking stuff in my water bottle," and drank it rather than submit to testing? Or detained a Ron Paul volunteer for carrying a treasurer's box filled with 4000 dollars (and theatened to arrest him for carrying drug money). Is that....

      Never mind. I'm done. I could write pages of examples. The SA gorillas are not "trained" anything. They are barely above the level of high school dropout IQ. Just like the SA that rounded-up the jews and relocated them to ghettos.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    8. Re:This is going to get ugly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, when was the last time you heard about a hijacking in Israel?

      Hijacking? No. Bombing? Last week or the week before last ... the guy had to get through the Israeli checkpoint that lets Palestinians into Jerusalem where the not even old enough to drink solder stared him down and let him pass.

      Don't be an ignorant douche. While Israel is far better at dealing with it than we are due to the fact that they actually ARE getting attacked daily, they aren't perfect and neither are their systems. Far more people are dying in Israel than in the US, so on that alone, your example is pretty shitty.

      You might as well also use some analagy like Getting your ass handed to you by the Swiss Navy, its only slightly less unrealistic than the others.

    9. Re:This is going to get ugly by Qwertie · · Score: 1

      I think I understand their approach to national security too: it helps increase the power of the federal government, it pleases the lobbyists that want the government to purchase billions of dollars worth of equipment from a particular manufacturer, and it distracts people from more important issues that the politicians would rather not discuss. When looking for motives, ask: who benefits? I wish people were not so foolish as to think that terrorist attacks can be stopped via airport security. Obviously the terrorists know that airport security exists, so they will attack trains, malls, concerts or busses instead. I also wish people could get it through their heads that terrorist attacks are too rare to worry about. And that the best medicine is prevention (don't breed terrorists through foolish foreign policy).

    10. Re:This is going to get ugly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This.

      What is the point of preventing people from blowing up a group of people on a plane than a group of people standing in line to get on the plane?

      Blow up a plane - stop a single plane and kill the hundred-odd passengers.

      Blow up a TSA checkpoint - Kill same amount of people, stop entire airport for months, much more damage done.

      Then what? Screeners to get into the line to get screened? Pre-flight, at-home interviews by TSA before you even buy your plane ticket? Restricting travel to people with special "travel-approved" ID cards? Where does it end?

    11. Re:This is going to get ugly by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      I think the GP was referring to the 'terrorist' being trained so as to not have any behavioral tells that security would spot.

    12. Re:This is going to get ugly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually blowing up at a TSA checkpoint will send Americans into more of shock than anything else. Terrorist can cripple the entire air travel system if they accomplish it. I hope it never happens for America's sake.

    13. Re:This is going to get ugly by WitchDoc83 · · Score: 2

      On one hand, I understand their ham handed approach to national security after 9/11. It was like a fire department flooding a property to make sure the fire was out. People had and will have good justification for ridiculing their blunt instrument approach to airport security -- especially the randomness of it all. On the other hand, we have intelligent people with experience enough to know that x-ray devices and bag searches only give the illusion of security. While on a much smaller scale, look at what the Israeli's do. A very well trained security person looks deeply into your eyes and questions you. That's it. That's all it takes to give the green light or send up a red flag. And, when was the last time you heard about a hijacking in Israel? Screening passengers by observation techniques can't be thwarted, while technological safeguards can always be overcome.

      As a Jew and married to an Israeli, I have a lot of firsthand knowledge about flying thru Ben-Gurion airport, and I agree 100% with the comments about Israeli security. Unfortunately, in the US that kind of security is called "profiling", and objected to even though we - rightly or wrongly - profile EVERYONE we come into contact with: it is called "first impression". Personally I think it is fine to profile people as one tool, but NOT OK to use that to discriminate against them.

    14. Re:This is going to get ugly by rhizome · · Score: 1

      What's your explanation for private companies running airline travel as a matter of national security? If the airlines can't keep bombs off their planes, then they go out of business and/or prosecuted for the actions of the terrorists they let through. How about life in prison for the entire board of directors of American Airlines?

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    15. Re:This is going to get ugly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A very well trained security person looks deeply into your eyes and questions you.

      Does he buy me a drink first?

    16. Re:This is going to get ugly by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Or at the elementary school which looks like a much softer target all of a sudden. Or the mall... or a big rally...

      Thats really the problem with it... best case scenario, if everything the TSA does works flawlessly with no way to be exploited.... even if I could put my head into such a pure fantasyland

      Then their best case "win" scenario is exactly that, terrorist planners scratch airports off their target list, and move on to a different target, leaving the TSA to implement their perfect security for no reason, while they they go and blow up a school full of kids.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    17. Re:This is going to get ugly by Githaron · · Score: 1

      With the logic of the policy makers, we will probably just end up with two security checkpoints rather than one and mandatory cavity searches.

    18. Re:This is going to get ugly by steelfood · · Score: 2

      Not much you can do about someone doing something stupid anywhere in the terminal. Airline security is more about preventing people from doing it 25000 feet in the air, where the chances of survival are practically nil. Targeted questioning by professional lie detectors is very effective in preventing this. X-ray machines, metal detectors, and body scanners/pat downs are not nearly as effective even as a deterrent.

      What the current TSA procedures absolutely don't prevent is hijackers taking the the plane and flying it somewhere or into some stuff, which is the actual scenario people fear. On the other hand, locked cabin doors have a very good track record of preventing the latter. Only, that isn't nearly as reassuring as having official-looking people stand around making other people (preferably darker-skinned people at that) miserable.

      People need to understand that there is no 100%. They need to realize that if they want to feel safe, they should just stay at home under their blankets and not come out. If they step on a plane, they are risking unnatural death. If they walk out their front door, they risk death. If they get into a car, they risk death. They need to understand that the chances of being blown up in mid air are about as large as the chance of death while walking outside, and magnitudes lower than the chance of death riding in a vehicle.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    19. Re:This is going to get ugly by jittles · · Score: 1

      Oh you think that the people who run the TSA are going to stop at airports? Please. They have an empire to build! They already are talking about scanning people at bus stops, train stations, and do randomly stop people on interstate highways to search their vehicles. They will celebrate the day that they get to expand their empire to schools, malls, and everything else.

    20. Re:This is going to get ugly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A very well trained

      Not going to work in the US.

    21. Re:This is going to get ugly by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      While on a much smaller scale, look at what the Israeli's do. A very well trained security person looks deeply into your eyes and questions you.

      But the question is, do we even need to do that? What exactly are we afraid of? We don't do that for buses, for trains, for boats. We don't do it for the mall, for schools, and the only reason there is any security at sporting events is to make sure people don't bring in illicit food.
      Really WHY do we need security on the planes?

    22. Re:This is going to get ugly by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      This.

      What is the point of preventing people from blowing up a group of people on a plane than a group of people standing in line to get on the plane?

      Blow up a plane - stop a single plane and kill the hundred-odd passengers.

      Blow up a TSA checkpoint - Kill same amount of people, stop entire airport for months, much more damage done.

      Then what? Screeners to get into the line to get screened? Pre-flight, at-home interviews by TSA before you even buy your plane ticket? Restricting travel to people with special "travel-approved" ID cards? Where does it end?

      When I flew home from Ankara, Turkey, I had to go through a number of check points. One just to get into the airport; after getting my ticket, another to get into the concourse; another to get into the gate area; and another to get onto the plane itself. All ran fairly efficiently, but it was still a PITA.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    23. Re:This is going to get ugly by cpu6502 · · Score: 0

      I was referring to the security not being able to spot a suspicious-acting person even if they saw one. They show a very low level of intelligence.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    24. Re:This is going to get ugly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we all know what group of people you were talking about. But Merk42's comment wasn't about you. Merk42 was pointing out that you and redmid17 are talking about two different groups of people, about how redmid17 was talking about people slipping by the stupid TSA by training themselves to not give off the telltale signs that the stupid TSA agents pick up on.

      Given how often you demonstrate an inability to follow a fucking conversation, you end up portraying yourself as rather incompetent.

  6. Enhanced Pat Down by bziman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The last half dozen times I've flown, I managed to steer myself to a metal detector line, instead of an irradiating machine. A few weeks ago, though, they simply weren't using the old fashioned metal detectors, so I had my first "opportunity" to opt-out. I was really looking forward to being fondled and groped, but the TSA screeners were so uncomfortable, that they probably weren't able to determine definitively that I was male, much less if I were carrying something dangerous, like a comb or a camera. The dudes didn't want to touch me or look at me! While I was being not-fondled, one of the other TSA screeners unpacked and repacked my carry-on at least three times, and re-X-rayed it. I guess she was confused about why I would need two phone chargers (one for the wall, and one for the car). I mean, aside from that, there were two books and some napkins. Oh and a bottle of alcohol - but no one had any problem with that. I got the impression that she was just trying to punish me for daring to opt out. The guys just wanted to move on. It would have been cute, if the rules they were following didn't so blatantly violate good sense.

    1. Re:Enhanced Pat Down by xaxa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've had the "pat down", which was far from it's name -- it's much closer to a "rub up". I didn't like it -- few people have rubbed their fingers around my scrotum, and I certainly wasn't expecting the TSA screener to when I "consented" to the search.

      However, not being an American, and being on my way out of the country, I had no choice.

      I didn't bother writing a letter. Should I? (Would a letter from a British person be ignored?) If so, where to?

      (In Europe, the most invasive search I've had is literally a "patting down" of clothing to look for concealed weapons, or else having the metal detecting wand waved over me. Although normally I walk straight through having not set off the metal detector.)

    2. Re:Enhanced Pat Down by mr1911 · · Score: 2

      I was really looking forward to being fondled and groped, but the TSA screeners were so uncomfortable, that they probably weren't able to determine definitively that I was male, much less if I were carrying something dangerous, like a comb or a camera. The dudes didn't want to touch me or look at me!

      Yep, the best way to keep your pat down short is to look like you are enjoying it.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    3. Re:Enhanced Pat Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This gives me an idea for a good way to protest the enhanced pat down.

      1) Fail to wash or clean yourself in anyway for a few weeks. Extra points for shoveling manure.*

      2) Buy a cheap ticket to someplace and go demand the enhance pat down.

      If DHS won't listen to the public, maybe they will listen to the TSA employees demanding extra pay for the enhanced pat downs.

      * Flaming Homosexuals** may work just as well, especially if they ask for someone particular to pat them down and perhaps request that certain areas get double checked.

      ** I seem to recall reading that you are allowed to claim to be homosexual and demand someone of the opposite sex pat you down. If that's the case, then you don't really need to be homosexual, just an obvious creep.

    4. Re:Enhanced Pat Down by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      I was really looking forward to being fondled and groped, but the TSA screeners were so uncomfortable, that they probably weren't able to determine definitively that I was male, much less if I were carrying something dangerous, like a comb or a camera. The dudes didn't want to touch me or look at me!

      Exactly how gross are you?

      --
      No sig today...
    5. Re:Enhanced Pat Down by guises · · Score: 1

      Should I? (Would a letter from a British person be ignored?) If so, where to?

      It's likely that all letters will be ignored, but it never hurts. If enough people write to make them believe it will cost tourism dollars it might make a difference, try the ambassador. You could also try your own government - part of the reason the US gets away with it is because other governments are going along with the whole theater experience, if the British government were to issue a travel warning against going to the United States it would get noticed at least. There have been other countries who have already done this, but none with the same standing to the US that Britain has.

    6. Re:Enhanced Pat Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why the thing to do is to get a Playboy to "read" before getting screened.

    7. Re:Enhanced Pat Down by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However, not being an American, and being on my way out of the country, I had no choice.

      Maybe not then, but you do now.

      My choice is not to visit the US. At the moment, their airport security there isn't something I'm willing to subject myself to.

      I've been lightly frisked elsewhere (politely, and not overly invasive), which is fine because I refuse to get into that scanner thing. But compared to what I've heard of the idiocy with TSA ... not happening.

      Ever since Alberto Gonzales said habeus corpus isn't actually guaranteed, there's been a fairly obvious conclusion that pesky things like the US Constitution just get in the way. (How an Attorney General can have no idea how your laws work still baffles me.)

      And since now apparently there's a huge Constitution Free Zone ... if it doesn't apply to citizens, I sure as hell don't want to be a foreign national.

      Sadly, 9/11 was when America jumped the shark in terms of her historical defense of rights.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    8. Re:Enhanced Pat Down by WhitePanther5000 · · Score: 2

      Yep, the best way to keep your pat down short is to look like you are enjoying it.

      This seems like a good opportunity for Viagra to reach a new market. "Viagra: make flying more enjoyable."

    9. Re:Enhanced Pat Down by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      It would have been cute, if the rules they were following didn't so blatantly violate good sense.

      You are all hijackers now. The 'nonsensical' rules are designed to throw you off guard. Your reaction is a determining factor for... whatever they're trying to determine... If everything 'made sense', then how easy is it to game the system?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    10. Re:Enhanced Pat Down by Nimey · · Score: 1

      What makes you think Gonzales was incompetent? His job was to give the Bush Admin legal cover to do what they wanted.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    11. Re:Enhanced Pat Down by doesnothingwell · · Score: 1

      Yep, the best way to keep your pat down short is to look like you are enjoying it.

      Repeat over and over in a soft voice "Please don't get a boner, please don't get a boner".

      --
      They can have my command prompt when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
    12. Re:Enhanced Pat Down by saarbruck · · Score: 1

      I fly regularly and opt out any time I can't steer myself into a metal detector line. Usually I have a brief wait for a 'male assist' and am then escorted to the edge of the screening area for my pat down, all the while my carry-on baggage is sitting on the conveyor belt 50 feet away where anyone could walk off with it. Awesome.

      --
      I am the very model of a modern major general!
    13. Re:Enhanced Pat Down by hazah · · Score: 1

      Hopefully gross enough to leave a bad impression.

    14. Re:Enhanced Pat Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's incompetent to just do what you are told to do without doing what you should be doing. It's the same moral principle that should keep soldiers from committing war crimes even when they are ordered to by their superiors. The position of Attorney General isn't for being a whore for the president.

    15. Re:Enhanced Pat Down by Nimey · · Score: 1

      In a vacuum, yes, but not in the Bush White House. The culture there was of unquestioning loyalty up and down the chain, from Bush the Lesser himself all the way down to the meanest political appointee.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  7. There are much better ways to spend money by Qwertie · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If a simple pat-down "induced PTSD and sexual abuse trauma", it is more likely to suggest a problem with the passenger rather than the TSA. Even so, America really can't afford billions of dollars in unnecessary equipment and personnel just to provide security theatre, especially since this particular theatre is not the slightest bit entertaining when it happens to you.

    And when you can get away with ignoring a court order, isn't that a symptom of a larger problem?

    1. Re:There are much better ways to spend money by mr1911 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If a simple pat-down "induced PTSD and sexual abuse trauma", it is more likely to suggest a problem with the passenger rather than the TSA.

      So it is the passenger's fault they have issues being groped?

      Passengers that have been sexually abused have had issues with the TSA groping reviving trauma from the initial attack. That is kinda what PTSD does to a person.

      I know, I know, it is hard for anyone on Slashdot to imagine being the subject of unwanted sexual attention, but these things do happen.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    2. Re:There are much better ways to spend money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow, blame the victim, shame on you!

    3. Re:There are much better ways to spend money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't plan to read the article, but I'll wager 3:Informative that the PTSD referrences were to people who had traumatic sexual abuse in their history and the TSA approved groping induced the painful flashbacks. There is an established history of the TSA not listening to anything that fragile (physically, psychologically, gastrointestinally, etc.) civilians tell them before, during, or after they follow their instruction manual.

    4. Re:There are much better ways to spend money by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      What makes you think this was a "simple" pat-down? Do you think it's impossible that a minimum-wage screener with little to no training moving through that many people would ever misbehave?

    5. Re:There are much better ways to spend money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll? Hah, I upmodded this comment. Fucking Awesome.

    6. Re:There are much better ways to spend money by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      I'm just about as anti-TSA as someone can get, and I have to say that as awkward and unsettling as having a stranger shove their hand in your crotch? That should not cause trauma to any mentally healthy, well-adjusted individual. It is not any more sexual than having a doctor or nurse probe your junk (unless you're into that kind of thing I guess?) and it's not like you didn't know it was coming.

      Small children and people with existing traumas are something else, of course, but the TSA doesn't have any systems to deal with that properly... or to deal with anything properly, for that matter.
      =Smidge=

    7. Re:There are much better ways to spend money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      have you ever been groped by the tsa? it is sexual assault. other countries pat downs are a lot less like a molestation.

    8. Re:There are much better ways to spend money by mr1911 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You have obviously never been raped.

      it's not like you didn't know it was coming.

      Ahhh, the justification that makes everything the TSA does A-OK.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    9. Re:There are much better ways to spend money by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      Simple pat-downs have not been used for quite a while now. TSA now uses enhanced pat-downs.

    10. Re:There are much better ways to spend money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just about as anti-TSA as someone can get, and I have to say that as awkward and unsettling as having a stranger shove their hand in your crotch? That should not cause trauma to any mentally healthy, well-adjusted individual. It is not any more sexual than having a doctor or nurse probe your junk (unless you're into that kind of thing I guess?) and it's not like you didn't know it was coming.

      The doctor touches your junk as part of a medical exam to ensure you're healthy. This is something you opt in for, because it benefits you. Having some stranger with no medical training shove his hands down my pants is unwelcome and invasive, and is of absolutely no benefit to my mental or physical health. How would you like to get a crotch exam every time you walked into a government building? Or a 7-11? I mean, terrorists could be anywhere, right?

    11. Re:There are much better ways to spend money by LateArthurDent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      people with existing traumas are something else, of course, but the TSA doesn't have any systems to deal with that properly

      That's the case that people are talking about. And the TSA does have the system to deal with it properly. It's called respect our civil rights and don't search people without a warrant or probable cause.

    12. Re:There are much better ways to spend money by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      You have obviously never been raped.

      "Small children and people with existing traumas are something else, of course"

      Ahhh, the justification that makes everything the TSA does A-OK.

      No, no it does not. The practice and the TSA at large are complete bullshit and not justifiable by any means that I can see. But it does not lead to trauma in an otherwise mentally healthy individual either.
      =Smidge=

    13. Re:There are much better ways to spend money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They really need to just put in a "+1 Troll" mod option and get it over with.

    14. Re:There are much better ways to spend money by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      How would you like to get a crotch exam every time you walked into a government building? Or a 7-11? I mean, terrorists could be anywhere, right?

      I would not appreciate it one bit, but I don't think it'd be traumatized by it if I knew it would happen ahead of time.

      I'd probably be more traumatized by shopping at a 7-11 in the first place.

      The doctor touches your junk as part of a medical exam to ensure you're healthy. This is something you opt in for, because it benefits you. Having some stranger with no medical training shove his hands down my pants is unwelcome and invasive, and is of absolutely no benefit to my mental or physical health.

      I agree that there is no benefit to what the TSA does, but it is ostensibly done for the purpose of benefiting your health by increasing safety. I don't think it accomplishes this, but that's what the given reason is.

      To go back to the doctor analogy, if the doctor says he needs to fondle your crotch when there is no actual reason for doing so, you would otherwise be unaware because you opted in for an general exam and hey, he's a doctor right? He knows what he's doing! If you go in to have a lump on your head checked out and the doc tells you to drop trou, perhaps it would be more obvious that the procedure is of dubious benefit.
      =Smidge=

    15. Re:There are much better ways to spend money by matrim99 · · Score: 2

      That should not cause trauma to any mentally healthy, well-adjusted individual.

      Based on your statement, there is an implied assumption that only mentally healthy, well adjusted people should travel (or be allowed to travel). I do not think that this is what you intended to say.

      --
      Right. No, your other right. No, the other other right.
    16. Re:There are much better ways to spend money by sjames · · Score: 1

      What part of PTSD you not understand?

    17. Re:There are much better ways to spend money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's *not at all* like a doctor or nurse. Doctors and nurses undergo substantial education and training, have a volunteer patient population that isn't coerced/forced, and actually serve a useful purpose (detecting and treating disease).

      TSA employees have virtually no training, little more than a high-school diploma, force you to be touched under threat of arrest (even though they're not police), and have no meaningful benefit to the people whose groin/scrotum/penis/anus they're caressing.

      If the TSA is like a doctor or nurse to you... well, you might want to find a different clinic.

    18. Re:There are much better ways to spend money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would not appreciate it one bit, but I don't think it'd be traumatized by it if I knew it would happen ahead of time.

      I'd probably be more traumatized by shopping at a 7-11 in the first place.

      Go get yourself sexually assaulted real good, then go through TSA's groping and let us know how you feel when you're actually qualified to comment. Maybe you still wouldn't be traumatized, but I doubt it.

      I was sexually assaulted when I was 10. The few times I've flown since they started this crap I've gotten progressively more panicked the closer to the front of the line I've gotten. Thank god I have managed to avoid the patdown. Unfortunately, each time I've had to then watch my wife receive a patdown, because her bra sets off the metal detector. She's a rape survivor.

      The terrorists won.

      I agree that there is no benefit to what the TSA does, but it is ostensibly done for the purpose of benefiting your health by increasing safety. I don't think it accomplishes this, but that's what the given reason is.

      To go back to the doctor analogy, if the doctor says he needs to fondle your crotch when there is no actual reason for doing so, you would otherwise be unaware because you opted in for an general exam and hey, he's a doctor right? He knows what he's doing! If you go in to have a lump on your head checked out and the doc tells you to drop trou, perhaps it would be more obvious that the procedure is of dubious benefit. =Smidge=

      1. You can tell the doctor no
      2. You can select your doctor
      3. You can choose whether your doctor is male or female
      4. If your doctor goes ahead and examines you anyways:
      - You can fight back and are allowed to use self defense as a defense
      - You can have them arrested
      - You can sue your doctor

    19. Re:There are much better ways to spend money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the TSA staff member is a Republican does that make it 'legitimate rape'?

    20. Re:There are much better ways to spend money by martas · · Score: 1

      Well of course it's a problem with the passenger, namely that she's been raped in the past and suffers from PTSD because of that. In all the cases I've heard when sexual abuse and PTSD are brought up in regards to the TSA it's to say that the person had a history of rape, and had PTSD as a result of that rape, and that the pat-down triggered flashbacks/episodes as a result of said PTSD.

    21. Re:There are much better ways to spend money by Mass+Overkiller · · Score: 0

      +1 on your four points as outlined

  8. Anxiety by thereitis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've never been groped by an agent, but I feel the anxiety of that and other abuses by the 'all powerful' every time I fly. So far it's just a terrible possibility in my mind and has never happened, but living under that fear should not be a necessity of a reasonably safe flying experience.

    1. Re:Anxiety by Smidge204 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but living under that fear should not be a necessity of a reasonably safe flying experience

      There is no evidence at all that you are any safer. In fact the TSA has failed to detect smuggled banned objects in every official test, several unofficial tests, and several anecdotal accounts that I'm aware of - and there have been numerous publications on how the various methods they use are easily fooled and/or don't detect the proper types of materials.

      You are living in fear and you're not even safer for your trouble.
      =Smidge=

    2. Re:Anxiety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what would make me feel safer? Adam Savage on the plane with 10 inch (or 12 or something, ludicrously long one way or another) razor blades. That would make me feel far safer than any of the actual 'security'... aside from perhaps the locked cockpit door, which pretty much solves everything in one neat little package anyway.

    3. Re:Anxiety by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      You know what I get anxious about? Standing in the security line, for a half an hour next to a barrel full of suspected explosives. And they claim it is for our safety.

  9. DHS' existence makes the case for states rights by BMOC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...over federal power. If you give the federal government too much power, they do things like this. They are simply not equipped (due mostly to incompetence) to deal with the concerns of it's citizens like local government is, and they should only exist to settle disputes between states and provide for the common defense and law. But when you put them in charge of things like this, you are guaranteed to get problems. The DHS is literally the poster child for why you should never ever ever give your executive branch in a representative republic more power than you would give your local mayor.

    --
    I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
    1. Re:DHS' existence makes the case for states rights by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      ...over federal power. If you give the federal government too much power, they do things like this. They are simply not equipped (due mostly to incompetence) to deal with the concerns of it's citizens like local government is, and they should only exist to settle disputes between states and provide for the common defense and law. But when you put them in charge of things like this, you are guaranteed to get problems. The DHS is literally the poster child for why you should never ever ever give your executive branch in a representative republic more power than you would give your local mayor.

      I don't see how giving regions, states, or municipalities this kind of responsibility or authority rather than the federal government is a solution to this sort of problem. Government at any level can be abusive and unresponsive. I read just yesterday in the local paper that the citizens of a nearby suburb are complaining that their city council is out of touch with the residents over a zoning change they made without addressing the neighbors' concerns. This is a city of 185 people. The peoples' recourse? Vote for someone else next time, maybe they'll listen.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    2. Re:DHS' existence makes the case for states rights by Cormacus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well their secondary recourse, in a town of 185 people, is to leave. This kind of voting with your feet is why pushing governmental functions down to the lowest (read: most local) level is a good thing. The feedback loop is tightest there. If the city government in a small city is out of touch and not listening, the final stage in the feedback loop is for the residents to up and leave for the next town over. The larger the area covered by that government, the more difficult it is to do that.

      --
      Mon chien, il n'a pas du nez. Comment scent-il? TrÃs mauvais!
    3. Re:DHS' existence makes the case for states rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well their secondary recourse, in a town of 185 people, is to leave. This kind of voting with your feet is why pushing governmental functions down to the lowest (read: most local) level is a good thing. The feedback loop is tightest there. If the city government in a small city is out of touch and not listening, the final stage in the feedback loop is for the residents to up and leave for the next town over. The larger the area covered by that government, the more difficult it is to do that.

      ... yes, in a perfect world. In the real world, however, people own things like houses and have things like friends and neighbors and jobs, which makes moving a lot more difficult than just choosing to not shop at The Gap. Your argument is logical in a vacuum, but unbelievably simplistic and naive in the real world.

    4. Re:DHS' existence makes the case for states rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      State governments didn't have a problem with a whole host of regressive policies for the vast majority of American history, so I'm not sure how your argument makes sense.

      Moreover, I've met many of my state legislators and local city council, and man, if you want to start talking about incompetence, you want to look at the most local government you have available.

    5. Re:DHS' existence makes the case for states rights by Cormacus · · Score: 2

      Even in an imperfect world I think its difficult to argue that moving between small towns is easier when it comes to "houses [and] friends and neighbors and jobs" than moving between counties or states or countries. Which was the point I was making. Maybe I'm asking to much of an AC.

      --
      Mon chien, il n'a pas du nez. Comment scent-il? TrÃs mauvais!
    6. Re:DHS' existence makes the case for states rights by Urza9814 · · Score: 2

      Yes. and if you talk to your local mayor, your local chief of police, your local council members...you'll get an actual response. At least I always have. Shit you send them an email and you get a clear, concise answer to exactly the issue you asked or complained about.

      Try getting that from a anyone in the federal government. Sure, you can go talk to them. I've talked to my state senator many times. Last time he told me 'yes, I'm definitely going to vote against this bill, it's a solution in search of a problem'...and then a month later he voted in favor of it. You send them an email, and the reply you get is an automated response that's some long-winded background discussion of the issue usually without any statement of where they themselves stand on it.

      I'd much rather be one of a thousand voices than one of a million.

    7. Re:DHS' existence makes the case for states rights by Cormacus · · Score: 1

      I've had a very similar response when trying to talk to my Congresscritter. Any "I think this is a bad idea because" letters are responded to with form letters that basically say "Thank you for your concern and by the way this is an awesome idea." Frustrating.

      If you compare 1911, when the current size of the House of Representatives was set (at 435 members total), and the present day, the citizen-to-congresscritter ratio has more than tripled. In 1911 the national ratio was about 244k people / representative; as of 2010 it was more like 709k people / rep. (Yes, this is an average over the whole country, which actually hides some interesting big state/small state disparities).

      --
      Mon chien, il n'a pas du nez. Comment scent-il? TrÃs mauvais!
    8. Re:DHS' existence makes the case for states rights by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      I think the point AC makes is that your suggestion, even though technically 'easier' than moving out of the country, is still an unrealistic solution. On top of that, it's completely unsympathetic (and I'd go so far as to say downright insulting) response to someone else's plight. "Oh, don't like something about where you live? Just move." ... and hope that the place you're able to move to is better.

      But then maybe the AC was asking too much of you.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    9. Re:DHS' existence makes the case for states rights by Cormacus · · Score: 2

      Well, I'm going to argue that both you and the AC are missing the point. I'm not suggesting that if someone doesn't like something about where they live that they should just move. Far from it, so try to be a little less sensitive to perceived insult. What I talking about is a person who has for whatever reason found themselves in an unsympathetic conflict with the government and all other avenues of recourse have failed. In that situation the difference between local government and and the government of a country is that they at least have one further option available to them.

      You could still argue that you have that option available at the national level, but if you take that option then you are forced to opt out of the whole system.

      Now, since we can easily assume that there are people that will find themselves in these types of situations... the argument then comes back around to the point: that we should push governmental functions down as locally as they can reasonably go, in order to preserve that last-ditch feedback option.

      By the way, thanks for responding from a non AC account. If we are going to argue politics its always better to know who you are yelling at.

      --
      Mon chien, il n'a pas du nez. Comment scent-il? TrÃs mauvais!
  10. They're doing it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The TSA always seems so proud that they offer same-sex inspectors for pat-downs. As a heterosexual male, that fact alone makes me pretty averse to being patted down. If they were to provide oppostite-sex inspectors for this, I think it would go a long way in getting more cooperation - maybe even willingness?

    1. Re:They're doing it wrong by WilyCoder · · Score: 1

      I imagine the issue being heterosexual women getting groped by jackboots.

    2. Re:They're doing it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well obviously. I said offer, not require. Maybe they could offer them wearing jackboots as well. If they're going to be hiring high-school dropouts for this anyway, why don't they poach some of the Hooter's job applicants?

    3. Re:They're doing it wrong by neminem · · Score: 2

      I've generally just seen it as a suggestion that inspectors should all be female, preferably attractive. Straight guys would enjoy it, gay guys and girls would be less creeped. I don't really see anything wrong with that plan, other than maybe complaints about discrimination. :p

    4. Re:They're doing it wrong by Hatta · · Score: 1

      The TSA always seems so proud that they offer same-sex inspectors for pat-downs. As a heterosexual male, that fact alone makes me pretty averse to being patted down

      I think you mean "As a homophobic male". There's a difference.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:They're doing it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he means heterosexual. The default case is that a person hates being groped. If the person being groped find the molester to be attractive, then they may like to be groped. However, this person is stating that they are male, and don't find any other males to be attractive. This eliminates the exceptional case, and puts him squarely in the default case of hating to be molested. It's not about being afraid of homosexuals. It's about hating to be molested.

    6. Re:They're doing it wrong by Hatta · · Score: 1

      As a heterosexual male I object to being nonconsentually groped in a non-sexual manner by anyone, male or female. If you're a gorgeous female supermodel great, you can jerk me off if you want. But you can't check my scrotum for weapons. That's unbelievably objectionable, no matter who is doing it.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:They're doing it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That isn't homophobia. That's objecting to a touch he doesn't want.

      The fact that I'm hetero, and could enjoy the touch of almost any woman there makes me many things; a pervert, a dirty old man, an asshole, an ebophile, a particular type of fetishist...

      But it doesn't make him or I a homophobe. Even when I add that I suddenly object if a guy's doing it.

      Really, you PC nutjobs trying to 'correct' people are making it even worse by causing the social change you want to be associated with...insanity. And everyone but you and your friends can see it, which makes it ridiculously easy to sympathize with the conservative homophobes -- because even if they're biggots, at least they aren't crazy.

      I can be averse to sexual touch by men and not be a homophobe. I don't get off on it or take pleasure on it. I'd go so far as to say I dislike it.

      Disliking it doesn't make me a homophobe. Disliking you for you enjoying it does.

      Or perhaps the fact that I don't like a hammer on my scrotum makes me a malletphobe?

      Do you see the difference? You don't get to call me phobic because I don't want something happening *to me*. Even if in other times or places I might really enjoy it.

      Do you really want me to honestly be able to argue that there's a "rainbow agenda" ?

      No? Then let people express how they don't enjoy some types of sexual touch, and don't claim someone's homophobic for not taking pleasure in a guy touching his prick.

      Queue next misguided fucking idiot.

    8. Re:They're doing it wrong by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Then let people express how they don't enjoy some types of sexual touch

      We're talking about non-sexual touch here. If you're so insecure that you have to find a female dermatologist to check out a mole on your sack, then you're homophobic. Same goes for the TSA.

      Of course, the TSA has no legitimate justification to touch your junk, but that's a problem whether your assailant is male or female.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    9. Re:They're doing it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sort of agreed. If I *HAVE* to get a female dermatologist, I've got issues. But really, don't be a dense douche. I said nothing about have to, and neither did the GP. They said what they prefer.

      There is no non sexual touching of my junk. It's my junk. I use it to piss and cum. You rub it, it responds. Half of its function *is* sex. It defines my sex. In my case it largely defines my gender with social help.

      When my doctor has me turn my head to the right and cough -- it's sexual, even if it's for wholly legitimate, necessary medical purposes. If I'd prefer this done by a woman wearing electrical tape, vinyl and a diaper -- well, that's kind of like ordering raspberry syrup with my pancakes -- it's just better for me that way, but I'm not going to change providers for it.

      A preference. Gay people respect sexual preferences right? And sexual orientation? You respect my right to know what I like and select who touches me accordingly? Or even if I don't select, to have that feeling and thought about what I enjoy?

      This has nothing to do with insecurity, this has everything to do with preference.

      You can't touch my sex organ and just call it non-sexual. You can't rub it, squeeze it, pat it, brush it with the back of your hand. You can't commit sexual assault and call it non sexual. You can't take sexual assault, say it's legal, and call it non sexual. If you put your finger up my ass -- whether you're a rapist, a proctologist, or a prison guard -- it's sexual.

      Being *averse* to having a guy check a mole on my sack isn't homophobia. It's the difference between burned toast and a belgian waffle for me. It's still a sexual touch I don't really /want/ from that person. In my case -- from that gender. There's other ways I'd enjoy it a lot more.

      That would change it from a slightly negative experience to a very positive one.

      Am I afraid, is it necessary ? Not at all. It's a patdown, not a handjob.

      But you're calling homophobia for the simple act of saying if someone's gonna touch me sexually, I'd rather have it be a woman.

      And you're full of SHIT in what you see. Oh, the argument about a mole is correct -- but it's a total strawman that you believe fits people for merely expressing a preference.

      Again -- your desire to find homophobia is discrediting a legitimate problem. There's real homophobes out there -- and you're reading into me as insecure -- and that makes YOU a problem.

      It's contrived, it's shallow, and again -- it gives credence to the conservatards because it stands out as so trivially...fallacious that even the illiterate hillbillies can spot it. But you're so heavy on homophobe-tagging you don't stop and worry about the consequences.

      Now, if you want to call it a "less sexual" touch or something, there's some room -- turning my head and coughing isn't a handjob. But it isn't exactly a pat on the back or a hug from grandma either...

      You want to educate -- do it. But make sure you aren't providing good fodder for the haters.

    10. Re:They're doing it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean "As a homophobic male". There's a difference.

      ...which is completely lost on you. Even as I typed the word "heterosexual," I wondered if someone was going to jump in with the -phobia accusation. Nah, the difference should be obvious, right? Guess not. Bottom line - I'm against enhanced pat-downs for the same reasons you are. But given that they're currently pretty much unavoidable: if there happened to be two lines for them at the airport - one with pat-downs administered by male TSA agents, the other administered by female ones, and I choose the female line, that doesn't make me homophobic, it's just my preference for myself (not others). I support your own right to choose whichever line you want, regardless of your own gender - I honestly consider it none of my damn business. But for me, for my own personal groping, I'd hope for the same. Don't ding me for choosing for myself, either way.

      Sheesh, my original post was supposed to be lighthearted and tongue-in-cheek anyway. Way to drag it into socio-political quicksand, Debbie Downer.

    11. Re:They're doing it wrong by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Being *averse* to having a guy check a mole on my sack isn't homophobia.

      Yes, yes it is.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    12. Re:They're doing it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The TSA always seems so proud that they offer same-sex inspectors for pat-downs. As a heterosexual male, that fact alone makes me pretty averse to being patted down

      I think you mean "As a homophobic male". There's a difference.

      He's not homophobic. He's not afraid of the gays... He's just an asshole.

    13. Re:They're doing it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO U!

  11. End sexual harrasment by TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
  12. communists won by Dan667 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    remember with the US use to make fun of communists for their "show me your papers" paranoia? tsa is UnAmerican.

    1. Re:communists won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod way-the-fuck-up!!!!!!!!!!!

    2. Re:communists won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "She canna' take any more Cap'n!"

      I have mod points and I'm using them, but it's already at +5. And unusually, this thread doesn't have that sentiment repeated by another post, so I can't redundantly mod up.

  13. Re:Popular vote or the severe lack of tigers by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why do you say they are ignorant? TSA is responsible for making sure that terrorists don't crash airplanes into our office buildings and work places. You don't have to fly to know that there haven't been any planes flown into office buildings in some time in the US. Now, I do fly a few times a year - and the security theater is pathetic. I'm about to fly again in two weeks and am not looking forward to it. However from the point of view of "average person who doesn't fly" - why would they not be satisfied that someone seems to be keeping planes from falling from the sky? It might be the same in principle as the old "tiger preventing rock", but to them it must be working.

    Actually, I have this whistle that keeps Seattle safe from tigers.

    Works fairly well for lions too, but not so great for bears.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  14. what do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Americans are so scared they won't allow their kids to walk to school or even play in their own front yard without constant adult supervision.

    1. Re:what do you expect? by jittles · · Score: 1

      This is so true and it drives me nuts. The school bus comes and picks HIGH SCHOOL aged kids in my neighborhood. The highschool is less than a mile away. A lot of the houses in the neighborhood are backed up against the damned high school. They could hop the fence and be in class in 2 seconds. If you have to walk around, it might take you 10 minutes to get there, tops.

  15. Remember what the TSA really is: a jobs program by neo-mkrey · · Score: 2

    The Great Depression had the WPA, and the Great Recession has the TSA.

    1. Re:Remember what the TSA really is: a jobs program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is, the WPA went away. The TSA is here to stay.

    2. Re:Remember what the TSA really is: a jobs program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Look, we wanted these people to be "digging holes and filling them up again", but you guys insisted on making it look like they were doing something useful.

  16. Re:Popular vote or the severe lack of tigers by ubrgeek · · Score: 1

    Dammit. This is one of those posts I wish I had thought of. Nicely done :)

    --
    Bark less. Wag more.
  17. Am I the only one? by BVis · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who doesn't find the TSA process all that outrageous? If you're getting PTSD from a patdown... well, I think your issues are greater than what the TSA has control over. I mean it's not that great that you get whacked (lightly) in the crotch if you forget to take some change out of your pocket (this happened to me the last time I flew) but it's not like they're cutting your hands off or raping you with a baseball bat.

    You could argue that it's unnecessary and intrusive, but if you're polite and follow their instructions when given, you're not going to have a problem.

    It's just not a big deal to me. You may feel different (and that's your right), but personally, I'm more concerned about getting food poisoning from the restaurant in the terminal (that has a captive audience) than I am about putting up with the TSA.

    --
    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
  18. Other sources... by bkcallahan · · Score: 1

    dontscan.us or dontscan.me