Slashdot Mirror


TSA Spending $245 Million On "Second Generation" Body Scanners

McGruber writes "Continuing its standard practice of wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, the TSA has awarded an indefinite delivery / indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract, worth up to $245 Million, to American Science and Engineering Inc. to deliver an unspecified number of 'second generation' Advanced Imaging Technology screening systems for use at U.S. airports. As previously reported, Jonathan Corbett proved that TSA's current nude-o-scopes are incapable of actually detecting hidden objects."

335 comments

  1. Abbreviation time! by Quakeulf · · Score: 5, Funny

    TSA = Trolling State Airports?

    1. Re:Abbreviation time! by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      TSA = Trolling State Airports?

      TSA -= Touching Scrotums at Airports

    2. Re:Abbreviation time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theatre of Security Administration

    3. Re:Abbreviation time! by ubrgeek · · Score: 1

      Problem is, you'd have to explain it to them. The concept of security theater is obviously lost on the agency's leadership.

      --
      Bark less. Wag more.
    4. Re:Abbreviation time! by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

      Thousands, Standing Around -- Thomas E Bennet

    5. Re:Abbreviation time! by Penurious+Penguin · · Score: 1

      Thousands Standing Around in a Terribly Substandard Administration squeezing the haggard Tits of Social Affability while Taxpayers Submit to Abuse by armed Trollops Sanctioned to Agitate them. Tyranny Subsists on Acceptance, which is why this Terminally Stupid Administration should be Terminated Soon; Alas, it may be too late, but we can still try.

      --
      Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
    6. Re:Abbreviation time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's Totally Stupid A**holes

    7. Re:Abbreviation time! by billd10 · · Score: 0

      TSA = Trolling State Airports?

      More like Totally Stupid A***oles.

  2. Note to TSA by Sparticus789 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Second generation != better

    Maybe they should think about using the methods employed by countries like Israel which actually work.

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
    1. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Call me crazy, but wouldn't a metal scanner and the cockpit doors being locked be more than good enough to prevent a new 9/11 type scenario?

      It would prevent stuff like a crowbar or whatever being taken in, so all in all, only about a 100 people could be killed and minimal damage done if the pilots never open the cockpits themselves. And to kill a 100 people without being able to take in a gun would be quite hard already. Thus it starts to be a harder terrorist action to pull of with little reward, following the concept of not being the fastest prey, but simply not being the slowest one either.

    2. Re:Note to TSA by JustOK · · Score: 5, Funny

      Banning passengers and crew from all flights is the only effective method.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    3. Re:Note to TSA by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, because remember this has nothing to do with keeping anyone safe. It's all about the theatrics. Security theatre is our policy, not actual safety. Besides, what do we really have to protect ourselves from? The threat of terrorism is as marginal and idiotic as the threat of getting cancer from a hair dye. It's merely a scare tactic to keep people jumping through as many pointless hoops as possible.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    4. Re:Note to TSA by trout007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In reality you didn't need to do anything post 9/11. Even on United 93 they figured out to fight back. The key weakness the terrorists exploited was not security but the policy of submitting to hijackers. After 9/11 passengers have shown time and time again that they will fight back.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    5. Re:Note to TSA by Octorian · · Score: 2

      You mean methods that require smart and highly trained screening personnel? Is an organization like the TSA even allowed to hire those kinds of people?

    6. Re:Note to TSA by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      To be fair to the authorities, they did mandate that cockpit doors be reinforced and locked from the inside.

      That was all that was needed to prevent the WTC attack.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    7. Re:Note to TSA by binarylarry · · Score: 1

      Dude, these including ultrasonic reacharound capabilities!

      Win win!

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    8. Re:Note to TSA by mellon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Oh come on. Seriously. You have a ceramic knife, and five buddies, and there are 200 people on the plane. How are you going to "start killing people?" You are going to get your ass handed to you. Every asshole that's tried something on a plane since 9/11 has been wrestled to the floor by angry and enthusiastic travelers. This isn't a real threat model.

    9. Re:Note to TSA by Kleen13 · · Score: 1

      But aren't all these things able to get through now, even with the scanners? The terrorists will just drive in through Canada and pick new targets, or adapt accordingly. They made their point with planes, now they can be content to watch everyone scramble around for 10 or so years while they piss in their cornflakes every morning and watch the show.

      --
      That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
    10. Re:Note to TSA by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

      You mean methods that require smart and highly trained screening personnel? Is the US government even allowed to hire those kinds of people?

      FTFY

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    11. Re:Note to TSA by cje · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem with the Israeli model is that it isn't terribly feasible at a large scale. It works because Israel is a tiny country with only one major international airport (Ben Gurion) that needs to be secured. This type of massive security infrastructure (extremely tight physical perimeter around the airport, security personnel with extensive psychology training, countless constantly-monitored security cameras, legions of plainclothes guards, etc.) is not a realistic scenario when you have hundreds of major international and regional airports like the US does.

      --
      We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
    12. Re:Note to TSA by trout007 · · Score: 2

      Wrong. If the policy was to never let hijackers enter the cockpit and always fight back you wouldn't even need a cockpit door. I don't know but I'm assuming the flight crew on the first three planes were telling the passengers to stay calm and do what the hijackers wanted. That will never happen again.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    13. Re:Note to TSA by bdenton42 · · Score: 1

      Like ethnic/racial/religious profiling? Somehow I think the Constitution will get in the way of that.

      On the other hand the first, second and fourth amendments don't seem to get in the way of the TSA so whats the big deal about ignoring another amendment?

    14. Re:Note to TSA by deanklear · · Score: 4, Informative

      The TSA has nothing to do with terrorism. It has to do with ratcheting up fear so the military industry can continue to suck half of our discretionary budget. It's a drop-in replacement for the cold war. We spend 4 times more than the entirety of the EU combined, or roughly 40-45% of the entire world budget.

      The numbers are probably higher, but I can't find any statistics right now that include interest on past wars, paying for veterans benefits, and the various weapons research projects that are buried in other departments like the DoE.

    15. Re:Note to TSA by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

      I do not disagree at all. Ever read "The Teeth of the Tiger"? Terrorists walk into the U.S. through the Mexican border and cause havoc. Completely plausible.

      I was responding to the AC poster thinking that a metal scanner and locked cockpit doors would do just fine for airline security. I believe that reactionary security is bad security. There's no point in adapting to the tactics used by the bad guys 10 YEARS AGO, when they can be just as creative as anyone else. It would be like figuring out how to patch Windows 98 to conform to present-day security threats. Pointless.

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    16. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean only having one airport, and interviewing everyone personally by specially trained staff?

    17. Re:Note to TSA by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      It's not pointless. It's crowd control. Slow boiling. Tenderize the meat. Soften up the target. Buy an iPhone and play Angry Birds while you wait. Sleeeep.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    18. Re:Note to TSA by __aaeihw9960 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nope, it's actually easier than that. Simply ban all items that can be used as weapons.

      Like staplers, picture frames, computer monitors, file folders, pens, pencils, paper clips, cell phones, coffee mugs, notebooks, binders, keyboards, cats, hammers, squirrels, water buffalo, car tires, lugnuts, eight sided stars, six sided stars, one sided stars (whoa), asphalt, poles, sticks, trees, crowbars, nails, screws, condoms, pregnancy tests, candy, plastic bags, corn nuts, potatoes, pesticides, garden rakes, trowels, towels, boats, hair ties, jackets, gum, highlighters, guns, earrings, necklaces.

      You know what, you get the idea.

    19. Re:Note to TSA by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      It's a drop-in replacement for the cold war.

      astute way to look at it.

      "dammit, look at all the money we are losing since the cold war ended. what else can we substitute so that our 'defense' buddies can continue to rake in more dough?"

      yeah, what a great con they pulled on the american people.

      wish the media would investigate this angle more. keep it more in the focus and let it sink in. after a generation, maybe there would be a chance of people coming to their senses and undoing all this harm to our freedoms and way of life.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    20. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seeing 300 doesn't make you an expert. Even if what you posit is true, that situation quickly turns into a standoff. People aren't going to pile into the attacker continuously until they're all dead like its a movie. They're going to see that they dont need to enter the galley, forcing the attacker to come to them where they have strength in numbers and room to maneuver.
      Also, If I were a pilot, I wouldn't open the doors even if they were threatening to kill the very last of the passengers on the plane. Opening the doors is means assured death for all involved. Leaving them shut means maybe the passengers still have a shot at this. Leaving them shut means theres at least a modicum of hope.

    21. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I hate my fellow citizens. Their cowardice and stupidity motivate them to accept, and even approve-of and support, evils like the TSA.

      It is because of all the voters who overpower my own vote that I don't fly, and am becoming more afraid of all forms of public transit (the TSA viper squads do not limit themselves to airplanes).

      *I* get the government *you* deserve, and I therefore feel no remorse at shaming you for your stupidity and cowardice.

      And I hate you all.

    22. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Missed a few - hands, feet, knees, elbows, teeth...

    23. Re:Note to TSA by firex726 · · Score: 2

      Yea, we could never replicate Israel.
      Party because of the incompetence of the TSA screeners and also because of the PC decries.

    24. Re:Note to TSA by Entropius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And Bin Laden succeeded between his wildest dreams.

      Fly two airplanes into buildings and watch a giant autoimmune reaction hurt the US vastly out of proportion to anything he could have done.

    25. Re:Note to TSA by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Prior to the 9/11/2001 hijacking, the expectation was that the hijackers has an agenda which ended in a hostage trade-off and everyone getting out alive. Cooperating with the hijackers ensured the survival of the hostages.

      I maintain that had we had locked and reinforced cockpit doors prior to 9/11, the hijackings would not have been successful. Expecting passengers and crew to risk their lives for the chance of stopping a hijacker entering the cockpit prior to the WTC attacks was pointless; They expected to live by cooperating. Locking the cockpit puts the idea of taking control of the plane out of their hands, making hijack less of an issue.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    26. Re:Note to TSA by firex726 · · Score: 1

      Constitution makes no reference for that kind of thing.
      They aren't denying people the right to fly, only pulling them out of line in the event that they seems suspicious. Some religious groups are more prone to violence then others.

      Personally I don't see the big deal with profiling, private businesses do it every day and no one says a word; but when a police officer stops a black person whose dressed like a thug and carrying a TV, in a gated community where he knows all the residents and this guy is not one of them; then it's a horrible act.

      The officer is doing his job by noticing suspicious activity and investigating.

    27. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be realsitic if the TSA/Government were really that concerned about security, and that's the point.

    28. Re:Note to TSA by firex726 · · Score: 1

      I don't think they interview everyone, mostly just keep an eye on the crowd and make "small talk", see how they react.

      If a guy is acting twitchy and nervous, and you ask him how the weather is or if he's there on business of pleasure and he can't give you a straight answer, or look you in the face when speaking then there is a good chance something's up.

    29. Re:Note to TSA by Pikoro · · Score: 2

      Heads, shoulders, knees and toes?

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    30. Re:Note to TSA by Hatta · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why not? What is it about airport security that doesn't scale linearly?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    31. Re:Note to TSA by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      you are aware how things ended up in thermopalyae? just checking.
      and besides than that there's things to throw in airplane too.

      what it really gets down to is.. what if the terrorist takes some kid hostage? though you don't really need a weapon for that.
      there's airline flights that have very few passengers aboard though too.

      but the isreali common sense threat consideration tactics really are more effective than the tsa methods. not as big of a business though and needs smarter people working the security.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    32. Re:Note to TSA by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Snap a CD in half, then try and explain why we're allowed to take them on aircraft but nailclippers and scissors are banned.

      You might want to wear eye protection, and don't run your finger over the exposed edge.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    33. Re:Note to TSA by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe they should think about using the methods employed by countries like Israel which actually work.

      I know you were referring to airports, but another Israeli approach comes to mind when I think of the TSA: the approach to West Bank checkpoints. Read this:

      http://www.bostonreview.net/BR37.4/oded_naaman_israeli_defense_forces_palestinians_occupation.php

      Arbitrary policies set by inept guards who know nothing about the high level reasons for what they do? Random harassment at will? Punishments for daring to say "no" or for standing up for your own dignity? Guards that have no idea whether or not they actually picked the terrorists out of a crowd of non-terrorists?

      This is what the TSA checkpoints are about. They are not trying to keep us safe from terrorists by humiliating us, punishing us for exercising our rights, or wasting our time and making us miss our flights. The checkpoints probably make us less safe, since we are standing in a neatly organized and easy-to-attack crowd before passing through. The goal is to attack our psychology, to remind us that the government can do whatever it wants and that we need to just go along with it if we do not want to suffer.

      After all, metal detectors and X-ray images of your luggage are more than sufficient to convince people that you are doing "something" to keep them safe (most people probably never noticed the available of glass at airport bars, or the fact that people who charter private jets go through no security at all). The purpose of the humiliating practices of the TSA is to make sure that people stay in line and do as their government demands. Eventually the TSA will spread these practices beyond airports, to trains, subways, and buses, until almost everyone deals with it on a daily basis. Then the TSA will have won: they will have conquered American psychology.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    34. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      chuck norris?

    35. Re:Note to TSA by Sparticus789 · · Score: 2

      We are profiled all the time. Look at car insurance. Men pay more than women. Single people pay more than married people. People who live in urban areas pay more than people that live in rural areas. How about life insurance? Same thing. "Profiling", as you put it, is merely assigning people a risk category based on specific parameters, like age, gender, marital status, race, etc.

      An 89 year old woman in a wheelchair with an oxygen tank is less likely to hijack a plane than a nervous 19 year old man who bought a one-way ticket to Washington D.C.

      And discrimination is not in the Constitution, it was an act passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    36. Re:Note to TSA by brxndxn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the theatrics are 'part' of the goal - but the real goal is money and social conditioning.

      As far as money, as long as the TSA and DHS keep the 'terrorist threats everywhere' narrative alive, Congress will continue to throw taxpayer money at these agencies to waste on worthless unskilled employees (TSA agents) and 'mysterious technological devices' that cost a ton of money. Under this idea, it does not matter whether AIT machines are effective for their actual declared purpose - they are an effective part of the 'social conditioning' goal which is to make the American people believe that the Government has control of the situation.

      As far as social conditioning, it has become more obvious that people in control of this country (and the world) will do anything to maintain their control. The TSA serves to undermine and erode individual civil liberties - it is there to make people get used to willingly giving up their rights. Of course the TSA, left unchallenged, will eventually end up in all venues or transportation centers. If the TSA or DHS were not interested in total expansion throughout the US, you would be hearing Janet Napolitano talking more often on the legal limits of the DHS.

      And further, this is just my opinion.. This is how I interpret the situation. But, I am posting this with reservations wondering if this will get me put on a 'list' somewhere. I cannot be the only one deathly afraid of the direction of the US Government and completely fearless of any terrorist threat.

      --
      --- We need more Ron Paul!
    37. Re:Note to TSA by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Israel's methods aren't scalable. They have a dozen airports.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_airports

      The US has about 14,000.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    38. Re:Note to TSA by uniquename72 · · Score: 1

      You still wouldn't get into the cockpit in order to turn the plane into a guided missile, which was the whole point of the 9/11 hijackings.

      There are infinitely easier ways to kill a paltry 200 people.

    39. Re:Note to TSA by Sique · · Score: 1

      The officer is not doing his job, if he doesn't for the same reason stop a white person dressed like a craftman, who carries a TV in a gated community where he does know all the residents, and this guy is not one of them.

      This is inherently exactly the same situation: Some person not personally known carries a valuable object. So why stop the one and let the other go?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    40. Re:Note to TSA by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      My sentiments, exactly. I'd mod you up, if I had mod points.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    41. Re:Note to TSA by Sparticus789 · · Score: 0

      So you expect a human being to sit by while 200 people are killed on the other side of a door. Are we going to start hiring sociopaths to be airline pilots?

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    42. Re:Note to TSA by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Re: "Open the doors or we start killing people."

      Here's the solution:
      1. Add a bathroom to the cockpit, put their meals in there beforehand.
      2. Remove all communication /into/ the cockpit...
      2a. Except for a single EMERGENCY button that when hit informs the pilot that we are in an EMERGENCY situation.
      3. EMERGENCY protocol:
      i. Pilots go to nearest airport, no stops, on priority
      ii. Upon landing a SWAT team enters the passenger cabin before talking to anyone in the passenger cabin wearing NBC.
      iii. If the emergency is medical (most likely) paramedics follow upon all-clear from SWAT.

      How this helps: You can't coerce pilots if you can't communicate with them. The hostage takers have no chance to negotiate before police just show up. Medical emergencies are still handled.

      Possible failure modes: The emergency button is going to put the plane over a major population center while landing. This is a good time to set off a bomb.

    43. Re:Note to TSA by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

      And how many millions were spent on body scanners? How many intelligent people could you hire to become TSA agents instead? Each one costs $200,000 or so. So you could hire 2-4 people (depending on location) who would make a living wage. Assuming typical work schedule, that means for every body scanner installed at an airport, you could put one more person at the checkpoints 24/7. At BWI, there are 20+ body scanners. I'd rather have 20 intelligent people chatting with people in line than get rape-scanned every time I go to the airport.

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    44. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first thing once the ground finds that there is an attempted hijacking, is that the local fighter jets will get scrambled and the plane forced down to the nearest runway. Then, the situation becomes one of two choices for the hijackers: Give themselves up or be carried out in body bags. There would be no other options given even if they managed to get the rest of the plane in submission and start killing hostages one by one for demands.

      9/11 changed things. Taking hostages on a plane changed from an "ordinary" criminal act to an act of warfare, where the hostage's life is secondary to nailing the hijacker. Yes, there is a high chance that both the criminals and the hostages end up dead, but no police department will ever want to be viewed as giving into enemy combatant demands.

      Times change. In the 1970s, one hijacked a plane and got a free ride to Cuba. In the 1980s, one hijacked a plane and could jump out of a parachute. Present day, a plane hijacking will mean the local police anywhere in the US will sooner destroy every living soul on board that jetliner than give an inch.

    45. Re:Note to TSA by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Call me crazy, but wouldn't a metal scanner and the cockpit doors being locked be more than good enough to prevent a new 9/11 type scenario?

      First, TSA is not about preventing 9/11 type attacks. It's about something else. Second, the absolute most effective way to prevent a new 9/11 type scenario is ... do it once. United Flight 93 is proof that it can never happen again.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    46. Re:Note to TSA by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      explain why we're allowed to take them on aircraft but nailclippers and scissors are banned

      Because Ma and Pa Kettle "feel" secure when scissors are banned. They don't feel that way when jewel cases are banned. US security is all about making the Kettles feel comfortable so they keep buying plane tickets, not actual security.

    47. Re:Note to TSA by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      The terrorists will just drive in through Canada

      What the hell do you mean 'drive in through Canada?' How do they get into Canada? And assuming they're in, they still have to go through US CBP to get into the USA, unless they drive over the border in a deserted spot in a Humvee, avoiding the motion sensors.

    48. Re:Note to TSA by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Second generation != better

      Depends on your criteria. My thinking is that they used the following:
      1. The belief that newer is better: check
      2. Can be operated by a trained monkey: check
      3. Is at least as effective as existing scanners: check
      4. Allows the TSA/DHS to increase our budget: check
      5. Gives the appearance of doing something: check
      6. Gives the appearance of improving things: check
      7. Has a name that implies it is better: check
      8. Is provided by a company that someone in TSA/DHS management will be working for shortly: check
      9. Will make the public feel safer: check

      I am sure there were other requirements but these cover the basics of the selection criteria.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    49. Re:Note to TSA by trout007 · · Score: 1

      Or the hijackers threaten to slash the throats of some women or children passengers unless they are allowed in the cockpit. You are back to changing the policy.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    50. Re:Note to TSA by dthx1138 · · Score: 2

      The TSA has nothing to do with terrorism.

      Here's my problem with this philosophy: there is no fundamental difference between the TSA and the myriad of private companies that handled airport security for decades prior to 9/11.

      Clearly, the TSA procedures are somewhat more inconvenient (taking off your shoes) or somewhat more humiliating (standing in a millimeter wave scanner in the proper pose for three seconds) than they used to be (empty pockets, walk through metal detector). Fundamentally, though, you are being asked to submit to searches of your person and property in exchange for the privilege of flying a plane.

      My point is, if the TSA is simply security theater and is not meant to actually prevent terrorism, how can the old system not have been as well? And more importantly, why didn't people have security theater outrage in the past?

      --
      I just found the box to change my sig. Um.... [timeless witticism].
    51. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Terrorist or aspie, can't tell diff.

    52. Re:Note to TSA by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

      1.5 Soundproof the cockpit.

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    53. Re:Note to TSA by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

      The problem with the Israeli model is that it isn't terribly feasible at a large scale

      Agreed, but you could still take a large dose of it in the USA. Empower and train clever screeners to ascertain that Granny or a toddler isn't a threat and send them on their way. Realize that some 19 year old coed in a Berkeley shirt probably isn't going to take down the plane with her tube of moisturizer. Would the odd mistake be made? Maybe - But the price for the alternate situation (loss of freedom) is too high.

    54. Re:Note to TSA by SilentStaid · · Score: 2

      Knees and toes... knees and toes?

      /duck

    55. Re:Note to TSA by Kleen13 · · Score: 1

      Use your imagination, don't be a tool. What the hell do you think I mean? False passport, student Visa, smuggled in on a container ship, or any one of the other million ways it's been done since there's the dawn of time. As for getting into the US, maybe drive right on through Peace Arch crossing for a Costco shop or a "gas and milk" run like the thousands that do it every day and never come back.

      --
      That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
    56. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should just ban clothes. It will make for some really cheap nudie-scanners!

    57. Re:Note to TSA by Digicaf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So you expect a human being to sit by while 200 people are killed on the other side of a door. Are we going to start hiring sociopaths to be airline pilots?

      In short, Yes. In long, Yes absolutely.

      They don't need to be sociopaths, just don't underestimate things like the bystander effect and the human capability to ignore something unpleasant. Turning off communications with the cabin would help, and I'm wondering if items like that were formalized once they started locking the doors and treating the cockpit like a secured zone.

      The human mind is wired to rationalize inaction and ignore reality, especially when there's any small amount of "push" being applied in that direction. Look at all the experiments we've seen that involve getting people to do or ignore horrible things with minimal effort. The Milgram experiment, for example. I'd be willing to bet that a pilot would ignore anything coming from the cabin if she or he was being told to ignore it by controllers.

    58. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should just build a wall around every individual in the world since anyone who isn't me is potentially an evil hateful barbaric terrorist, especially those immoral people who don't agree with my morally superior beliefs and ideologies. After all, those people are obviously uneducated and lazy. Now can anyone get me a ladder so I can get off my horse?

    59. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sparticus789 talks like a prepubescent 13 year old that just discovered textfiles.com

      If the TSA is supposed to prevent hijackings, they are useless. I spent years as a locksmith. If I give some random Jihadi asshole a paperclip and a drill, he's not getting in to the cockpit before the pilot makes an emergency landing/crashes the plane. This is true even if the lock is a Kwikset simply because a simple privacy latch solves the problem entirely. The threat is a "The Shining" axe murderer scenerio where the attacker realized the door/lock/frame is significantly stronger than the barrier wall they are mounted in.

      Your ceramic knife example is a total and complete joke. This is reality, not a Quentin Tarantino film. In your fantasy world, a single defender can overcome 40-1 odds in CQC using a kitchen given strategic positioning and a kitchen knife. In practice, the hijackers would be as fucked as a bouncer at a Great White concert.

      Also, BTW metal detectors are not looking for strongly magnetic objects, They look for objects above a certain density threshold which most/all ceramic knives will still set off. These detectors are least sensitive near the floor which is why the shoe bomber hid the detonator in his shoe, and why I suspect many metal detectors now have traction plate ramps preventing you from shuffling your feet through the scanner. Thanks for buying in to the urban legend though.

      If the TSA is supposed to prevent airline bombings(a threat of questionable merit relative to hundreds of softer targets where 300 deaths would be easier to achieve) then they are doing a shitty job. The plane is most vulnerable on takeoff and landing, but because of the economics of the situation(real estate is expensive), practically every airport in the world leaves their landing strips exposed to the effective range of traditional man-portable weapons.

    60. Re:Note to TSA by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Re: "Open the doors or we start killing people."

      Here's the solution:

      Your solution is unworkable and unnecessary. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for the crew to communicate with the cockpit. There is a much better and simpler solution: train the crew. Make sure everyone understands that you never open the cockpit doors under duress. Crews are already trained in mock emergency situations, so adding this would cost little (and is probably already happening). If the training is realistic, then in a crisis the crew will do what they have been trained to do.

      In the history of commercial aviation, this is the number of times a cockpit crew has unlocked a secure cockpit door under duress: 0. So I don't think this is a pressing problem that requires the sort of extreme measures that you advocate.

    61. Re:Note to TSA by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      Snap a CD in half, then try and explain why .... snip

      It's not supposed to make sense or stand up under logical scrutiny, it's theater.

      (And mostly of the "farce" variety...)

      --
      No sig today...
    62. Re:Note to TSA by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So you expect a human being to sit by while 200 people are killed on the other side of a door. Are we going to start hiring sociopaths to be airline pilots?

      Options:

      a) Let the terrorist kill everybody on board (unlikely, even with an assault rifle)

      b) Open the door, let the terrorist crash the plane somewhere. Everybody dies including the pilot and the people on the ground.

      You don't need to be sociopathic to choose option a.

      --
      No sig today...
    63. Re:Note to TSA by RobertLTux · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No i expect the Pilot to disable the AutoNav and do some maneuvers aimed at turning the cabin into a DICE CUP. don't forget the biggest weapon on an airplane is THE AIRPLANE ITSELF.

      "This is your captain speaking Sorry about the turbulence but we have had a bit of trouble in the cabin. As you disembark please be aware you will need to make a statement to security."

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    64. Re:Note to TSA by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Re: "Open the doors or we start killing people."

      Even more people die if they open it.

      --
      No sig today...
    65. Re:Note to TSA by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Has anybody stopped to ask why terrorists need to get past the TSA?

      They can just as easily blow up the queue for the scanner. It would probably do just as much damage in real terms.

      --
      No sig today...
    66. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If the passengers can't overpower them to stop them from that, they're going to kill everyone when they gain control of the plane anyway.

      So the solution is the same, don't open the door, as it it would even get that far.

    67. Re:Note to TSA by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      You cannot fly on El Al to Israel without being interviewed.

    68. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine if a TSA agent lets that granny through for it to later turn out she blows up the plane. I smell lawsuit.

    69. Re:Note to TSA by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      For the umpteenth time, RACIAL PROFILING DOES NOT WORK!

      Stupid ignorant bigots blabbering the same shit over and over and over and over again.

    70. Re:Note to TSA by tangent3 · · Score: 1

      A couple of questions for you...

      1) Who did you vote for?
      2) If that politician you vote for had taken office, how would he or she have prevented TSA from happening?

      Just curious

    71. Re:Note to TSA by Githaron · · Score: 1

      Another option is to make a locking mechanism that can only be unlocked when the plane has landed and the proper security codes have been activated. It's hard to get into the cockpit when even the pilot cannot let you in.

    72. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Israeli methods rely on profiling in ways that are illegal in the US.

    73. Re:Note to TSA by readin · · Score: 1

      So you need both. You need an expectation on the part of the passengers and crew that cooperating with the hijackers won't lead to survival, and you need reinforced doors to help passengers and crew in their efforts to keep the hijackers from reaching the cabin.

      Without the change in expectations, the crew just open the cabin to the hijackers to that hostages don't get killed. Without the reinforced doors the passengers and crew might be able to stop the hijackers - but it is a much more difficult task because they have to prevent the hijackers from interfering with the flight during the fight (they don't have to gain control of the plane to crash it).

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    74. Re:Note to TSA by readin · · Score: 1

      How long will it be before accusations of profiling based on race or religion start to fly?

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    75. Re:Note to TSA by __aaeihw9960 · · Score: 2

      OH GREAT. Now we'll have scans to get to the lines for the scanners.

    76. Re:Note to TSA by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      And eyes and ears and mouth and nose....

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    77. Re:Note to TSA by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Heh.

      Pilot: Hey, what's all that racket?

      Co-Pilot: Huh, looks like some asshole is at the cabin door, threatening the passengers with a... is that a steak knife? Anyway, he seems to think that he can corral them all into the galley and take 'em out one by one, as if anyone is stupid enough to fall for that one...


      Pilot: Oh, so he wants to take on the crowd? I think we can oblige... *Takes the plane into a steep climb*

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    78. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Who could we have voted for in the recent past that has pledged to dial back the TSA? This seems to be more of a cultural trend than any particular group's politics.

    79. Re:Note to TSA by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      No, just people who prioritize. If you open the door, you've "saved" the lives of those 200 people for a few minutes until the hijacker flies the plane into a building. Then, not only are the 200 people on board dead, but perhaps thousands more on the ground/in the building are dead as well.

      If, however, you keep the door locked, radio the ground, and perform an emergency landing, you 1) limit the death toll to 200, 2) perhaps save some of those 200 people, and 3) send a clear signal to future would-be hijackers that this method doesn't work anymore (thus saving preventing passenger deaths via this method in the future). No, #3 doesn't mean the would-be hijackers would give up and yes they could kill people via other methods, but they won't be doing it via the "I have a knife and will kill everyone unless I'm given control of the cockpit" method.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    80. Re:Note to TSA by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Three planes, actually. (Don't forget the Pentagon one.) Would have been four but the passengers of that plane got news of what was happening and fought back, sacrificing themselves to stop the hijackers.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    81. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't think those headsets are noise canceling? They are. If it isn't piped in by those headsets, they don't hear it.

    82. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose many people are too young to remember, but there was a time within my lifetime when there was NO airline security. As in, no scanners, no bag checks, no need to show your ID, nothing. You could walk on board the airplane with a loaded firearm if you wanted (and people sometimes did).

      It wasn't perfectly safe to fly then either, but it was still safer than driving.

      The TSA will become the "new normal" to younger folks now just as the pre-9/11 security became the "new normal" to those who were young in the 60's.

    83. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Killing all the people on the plane is still far less of a problem then killing a thousand more WITH the plane.

    84. Re:Note to TSA by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      False passport, student Visa, smuggled in on a container ship, or any one of the other million ways it's been done since there's the dawn of time

      But why would they go into Canada first, then attempt to cross the US border? Why wouldn't they just enter the US directly using one of these methods?

    85. Re:Note to TSA by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

      So tell me, how many wars have you fought?

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    86. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pump the cabin full of knock out gas? Seriously though, how much have we spent on air safety theatrics through the TSA? Would it have been cheaper just to employ an air marshall on every flight?

    87. Re:Note to TSA by deanklear · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My guess is that you just don't remember life before the TSA.

      When I was a kid, my whole family could meet me at the gate where I arrived. Now, you're not allowed unless you have special permission. Before the TSA, you were allowed to keep your shoes on. You didn't have to disassemble your luggage on the conveyor belt. Security check lines were short. You didn't have to worry about spending hours in detention if they mistakenly had you on the no fly list, or if someone thought you looked suspicious, or if you had dark skin. Eighty and ninety year old individuals and children were never strip searched, and nor was anyone unless there was some serious suspicions about that person. Now we are all terrorists until proven innocent, which we can only do by giving up our Constitutional rights.

      So, the reason there was no security theater outrage is because we didn't have to watch a TSA agent pat down a infant, or read about them requiring a 95 year old cancer patient to remove her adult diapers. Entire city blocks weren't shut down over suspicious packages, and we weren't spending billions of dollars on processes with dubious security value.

      One reason the TSA is receiving funding instead of technologies to scan containers is because actually inspecting our imports would slow business down, and while giving up large parts of the Bill of Rights is just fine, the people who own our government through lobbyists would never allow a fraction of their profits to get eaten up by providing actual security measures. The other reason is because it subjects more people to the idea that terrorism is our greatest threat, and establishes the normalization of constant search, seizure, and fear whenever the government cares to abuse citizens. No Administration is going to give up that power without a fight.

    88. Re:Note to TSA by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

      So tell me, how many times have you stood by while people are murdered a few feet away from you? If people always thought of the long-term effects and consequences of their actions, why do people still smoke, use meth/cocaine/heroin/etc., and commit crimes like murder and rape? You're expecting a logical response 100% of the time from people, who are not necessarily logical.

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    89. Re:Note to TSA by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Nobody "sneaks" across the border into the United States.

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    90. Re:Note to TSA by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

      I've used aviation headsets before. They do not cancel EVERY noise. Mainly rhythmic noises (like jet engine) and are constant and stable. Voices are reduced in volume, but can still be heard.

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    91. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And more importantly, why didn't people have security theater outrage in the past?

      They did. George Carlin did quite a long and passionate bit about it in 1999 or 2000. And it played very well to the audience, which it wouldn't have done if the sentiment wasn't there among them.

    92. Re:Note to TSA by Kleen13 · · Score: 1

      They certainly could, that wasn't my point. My point was that they would likely not bother using airlines as bomb vests anymore, and move on to a different method.

      --
      That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
    93. Re:Note to TSA by SomePoorSchmuck · · Score: 1

      You're crazy.

      Metal is not the only threat. Ever used a ceramic knife? I have one in my kitchen and cuts just as well as my sharpest metal knife. How about plastic explosives? All you would need to ignite them is a small cell phone battery (allowed on planes). Locking the cockpit doors only does so much good. Think about coercion, "open the doors or we start killing people." Or, the well-known fact that every lock can be broken with tools as simple as a paper clip or a drill. Before you get started, electronic locks are even more vulnerable, being in the air gives someone a lot of time to brute force a lock that often has a 10-digit numeric combination.

      You watch waaaay too many movies my friend.

      Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe someone should tell the local bank, gas station, grocery store, and pharmacy that every lock can be broken with paper clips. So, you know, no point in putting locks on doors, because hey, paper clip. And maybe coercion will still work in a post-911 world. Maybe pilots will think, "Yeah, let's just open the cockpit and let the terrorists in here. What's the worst that could happen?" And maybe terrorists managed to sneak on with both a crysknife and some kind of equipment that allows them to simply "brute force" the correct code out of the ten billion possible 10-digit numbers, because being in the air makes that kind of thing go faster somehow.

      --

      Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
    94. Re:Note to TSA by turp182 · · Score: 1

      Your signature is probably more likely to get you put on a list. But it is a good one, he's the candidate I'm going to write in come November.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    95. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      penis?

    96. Re:Note to TSA by zlives · · Score: 1

      -1 diced (penis)

    97. Re:Note to TSA by Sparticus789 · · Score: 0

      Common house locks can be opened with little training. So-called "secure" locks are even worse, false sense of security. I've seen $1,000 locks be opened with 5 dollars of stuff from Wal-Mart. Same goes for so-called "secure facilities," which have locks that can be bypassed in under 5 minutes.

      And tell me more about the security of 10-digit passcodes. So lets go with that password, with a $2,000 dollar laptop could be cracked in about 20 minutes?

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    98. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was on a flight recently that gave out metal cutlery to eat our meal with. I was a little surprised when I first saw this! But, believe it or not, all 600 of us used them without incident. I think in the post-9/11 world, if anyone tried something with their cutlery they'd be taken down by another passenger in seconds.

    99. Re:Note to TSA by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      Think about coercion, "open the doors or we start killing people."

      9/11 itself did more to solve this problem than any measure implemented by any three letter agency and billions of taxpayer dollars wasted since.

      If you think people are going to tolerate this sort of aggression without instantly rising up and bum rushing you then you have not been paying attention.

      Or, the well-known fact that every lock can be broken with tools as simple as a paper clip or a drill.

      LOL you've got about 5 seconds.

    100. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That came up in the congressional hearing, they decided machines were less invasive.

    101. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Don't forget the Pentagon one.)

      This. If it had only been the towers we probably wouldn't have overreacted quite so much.

    102. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can bet in that circumstance that a substantial number of passengers would react just as strongly to that. Sure, if the terrorists have managed to get a machine gun onto the plane, people aren't too likely to react, but the chances of doing that are pretty small. If all they're holding is a knife, honestly, the terrorists aren't going to get very far before they are pummelled into submission, no matter how well trained they are. They sure as hell aren't going to get through many passengers before the rest start to defend themselves.

    103. Re:Note to TSA by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      The problem with the Israeli model is that it isn't terribly feasible at a large scale. It works because Israel is a tiny country with only one major international airport (Ben Gurion) that needs to be secured.

      Uh what? There's nothing stopping this from happening, none what so ever except that people say...oh noes, it's impossible to do. It's kind of like saying, OH NOES THE RADIATOR ON MY CAR IS LEAKING...what ever shall I do...

      Beh. Repeating something over and over again doesn't make something impossible to accomplish, inaction does.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    104. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US has about 500 commercial airports with scheduled operations, with the balance being GA airports with a varying range of grass to asphalt runways.

      I can go to about a two dozen within an hour of my home (only 2 of which have scheduled operations), which I can rent a plane and fly without any TSA involvement.

    105. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't answer a single one of the points he made that refuted your bullshit. Because you knew you couldn't.

    106. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What the hell do you mean 'drive in through Canada?' How do they get into Canada? And assuming they're in, they still have to go through US CBP to get into the USA, unless they drive over the border in a deserted spot in a Humvee, avoiding the motion sensors."

      There's no shortage of such places. Plenty. And getting into Canada isn't that hard either (e.g., if you took a private boat and smuggled your way in on some remote coast). That terrorists haven't tried to do this means either: 1) that the stories of harsh Canadian climate have scared them off from that approach, 2) that it's easy to get into the US through regular transportation means (i.e. despite the TSA or CBP checks), or 3) that there just aren't many terrorists trying in the first place.

      My money is on option 3.

    107. Re:Note to TSA by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Hold on a second, the dude who's too scared to get on a plane unless all the other passengers have everything that could possibly removed is calling the (seemingly) knowledgable dude "a scared little girl." At least read the post to which you're replying.

    108. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly not scalable. Any country is only legally allowed to train 24 guards at an absolute maximum.

    109. Re:Note to TSA by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Call me crazy, but wouldn't a metal scanner and the cockpit doors being locked be more than good enough to prevent a new 9/11 type scenario?

      To add an extra dose of stupid, they send the passengers through the scanner instead of the metal detector as opposed to sending them though both of them. So all you have to do is hide your weapon from the scanner, which has been shown to be generally ineffective. Their current policy actually reduces the security at airports.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    110. Re:Note to TSA by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      My point is that if you wanted to sneak into the USA, why would you add the extra complication of sneaking into Canada first? Why wouldn't you just sneak into the USA directly. For example, if you're doing it by boat just land yourself on the Olympic Peninsula or Maine - Heck even Alaska and then just fly from Anchorage to Seattle with no CBP checks. If you're coming in in a container, land yourself at Baltimore or Long Beach... and on and on. And yes, my coin is on option 3 as well.

    111. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I foresee a resurgence of flint napping Obsidian, or other such rock. Try detecting a rock with a scanner that can have a blade as sharp as any razor.

      and the only way to prevent anything is to ban clothing on all flights. screw the nudy scanners, if they want to see us naked just mandate we fly that way.

    112. Re:Note to TSA by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the solution is to increase the TSA by 10x!!!

      And the jobless rate will go to 0%!

      But the security won't actually be any better.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    113. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're expecting a logical response 100% of the time from people

      Strawman arguments are lies.

    114. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're crazy.

      Metal is not the only threat. Ever used a ceramic knife? I have one in my kitchen and cuts just as well as my sharpest metal knife. How about plastic explosives? All you would need to ignite them is a small cell phone battery (allowed on planes). Locking the cockpit doors only does so much good. Think about coercion, "open the doors or we start killing people." Or, the well-known fact that every lock can be broken with tools as simple as a paper clip or a drill. Before you get started, electronic locks are even more vulnerable, being in the air gives someone a lot of time to brute force a lock that often has a 10-digit numeric combination.

      Yes it is a well known fact that locks can be broken, given enough time. But given an infinite number of monkeys banging away on an infinite number of typewriters and an infinite amount of time and they will eventual bang out all of Shakespeare. If you see someone at the front of the plane fiddling with the door guess what will happen.
      A tap on the shoulder from the Air Marshal on board and a nice "talking" to. or if no air marshal is on board a flight attendant will notify the pilot and an emergency will be declared. Land at closest airport and all is taken care of.

    115. Re:Note to TSA by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

      So where did I say I was too scared to get on a plane? Oh right.... I didn't. All the attempted hijacking since 9/11 have been amateur hour. Get a few guys that have been trained and know how to fight (not many left, all got killed by drones) and there would be a problem.

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    116. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take it you have not flown in a while and therefore have forgotten how most planes are laid out, so let me remind you. There is a central isle, and on either side of that isle are seats usually 2 and 3 or 3 and 3, some times 1 and 2 but for this lets say 3 and 3 in coach and 2 and 2 in first class. So the attacker who happens to be in first class in row 1 stands up turns around and threatens the plane. Now he has 1 person to lets say his left, and 2 people to his right. That is a 3 on 1 fight. So suppose he gets the drop on the first person to make it clear that he is indeed a terrorist, its still a 2 on 1 fight. Now lets say he was able to get all three of the first row, now he has row 2 to deal with. that makes it a 2 on 1 or by this time more likely a 4 on 1 fight, you see where im going with this. While all this is happening the pilot has declared an emergency and diverted to the nearest airport to land at.
      Thermopylae worked because it was a choke points that the Spartans were able to take advantage of using the phalanx, and training from birth.

      Point is it is not feasible to attack a plane anymore. ever since 9/11/2001 passengers have become aware of just what can happen if they do nothing. even if that means putting their life on the line to save others.

      To quote Spock "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few"

    117. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That border is over 2,000 miles, most of which is in sparsely populated areas. If they wanted to come in through Canada, it doesn't seem like it should be too hard.

      dom

    118. Re:Note to TSA by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      c) take the plane aerobatic, listen as passengers kick the shit out of hijacker. If hijacker wins fight repeat aerobatics. Passengers are sitting down and mostly wearing seat belts, hijackers are walking around. Go -1 Gs for 5 seconds and the passengers will kick the shit out of the hijacker before he recovers his footing.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    119. Re:Note to TSA by SomePoorSchmuck · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Has anybody stopped to ask why terrorists need to get past the TSA?

      They can just as easily blow up the queue for the scanner. It would probably do just as much damage in real terms.

      I think about this all the time. I fly 3-5 times a year, and so far I have always opted out of the scanner. When this happens, the agents all go about their business while I stand there waiting for the next Feeler to become available -- "Male Assist on lane 3! Male Assist on lane 3!......(two minutes later) Male Assist on lane 3!......(two minutes later) Male Assist on lane 3!.......(repeat)". Typically my (punishment) wait time is between 15-25 minutes while all the other folks walk through nude photobooth. During this interval I am standing in the middle of the screening area right next to the machines and agents and passenger line, and I have had no pre-screening at all other than the ID/boarding pass check at the back of the line. Some whackjob could load up his underclothes and his carry-on bag with enough explosive to destroy the entire checkpoint, and just stand there watching the line, waiting until some family with babies or a big church youth mission group with dozens of bright-eyed photogenic save-the-world kids gets up to the front of the line for maximum psychological impact on the evening news. He'd get the bonus -- regular passengers, high-drama passengers, shutdown all airports nationwide in the panic, as well as destroy tens of millions of dollars worth of body-scanner equipment in that checkpoint.

      Incidentally, I've also wondered about that punitive wait time. There have been a couple occasions were it seemed the Feelers were available, but they busied themselves with normal screening procedures for a few extra minutes. The last time I flew it occurred to me that perhaps they do have secret instructions to make anyone who opts for a pat-down wait around long enough for the face-recognition software (or the casino-style camera mounted over the person at the back of the line checking ID/boarding passes) to run your name and picture against a preliminary database.

      --

      Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
    120. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OH GREAT. Now we'll have scans to get to the lines for the scanners.

      "Yo dawg we heard you like scannerz...."

    121. Re:Note to TSA by mellon · · Score: 1

      The scenario your propose is absurd. Sure, five highly trained soldiers with ceramic knives could subdue 200 people if those 200 people had reason to think they'd survive. But try the same thing in an airplane, and everybody is going to assume you're going to kill everybody on board. So they will fight you to the death. And you will lose, because you are massively outnumbered, and losing probably just means some bruises, not death.

    122. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Metal detectors do a prety good job of stopping guns and knives.

      The new scanners have been shown to be less effective at detecting those same threats.

    123. Re:Note to TSA by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The accusations are thrown around Israel as well. They are just smart enough to ignore them.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    124. Re:Note to TSA by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm fucked if they hire TSA agents with nice tits.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    125. Re:Note to TSA by locopuyo · · Score: 1

      Even the most skilled fighter would be lucky to take on a few average people at once. You watch too many movies.

    126. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed.

    127. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans by and large aren't mature enough to do profiling correctly.

      Correct profiling is determining from statistics which observable traits correlate to the activity you with to prevent.

      Americans all seem to hear "wave the white people through and stop everyone else".

      That's why profiling doesn't work in the US

    128. Re:Note to TSA by djdanlib · · Score: 1

      You gotta watch out for those weaponized garden rakes. Especially the plastic ones. The thwack noise they make could potentially frighten small animals!

      Who brings that on a plane?!

    129. Re:Note to TSA by djdanlib · · Score: 1

      When you land, you'll have a small armada of armed officers waiting to clobber the perp, too. This is a good situation because these crazies don't usually just wake up one day and independently decide to do it... they are part of a system, which can be worked against by getting intelligence from captive agents. I'm betting that we'd see a lot fewer attempts if attempts were so much better known to be futile.

    130. Re:Note to TSA by SomePoorSchmuck · · Score: 1

      Common house locks can be opened with little training. So-called "secure" locks are even worse, false sense of security. I've seen $1,000 locks be opened with 5 dollars of stuff from Wal-Mart. Same goes for so-called "secure facilities," which have locks that can be bypassed in under 5 minutes.

      And tell me more about the security of 10-digit passcodes. So lets go with that password, with a $2,000 dollar laptop could be cracked in about 20 minutes?

      Do $2,000 laptops now come equipped with Data The Star Trek Android articulated robotic hands capable of punching thousands of 10-digit guesses per second? Man I need to swing by Fry's on the way home and score some of that tech. I just hope it's not an HP, because I hate the spacing on their keyboards.

      --

      Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
    131. Re:Note to TSA by Sparticus789 · · Score: 0

      Alright AC, here ya go.

      If the TSA is supposed to prevent hijackings, they are useless. I spent years as a locksmith. If I give some random Jihadi asshole a paperclip and a drill, he's not getting in to the cockpit before the pilot makes an emergency landing/crashes the plane. This is true even if the lock is a Kwikset simply because a simple privacy latch solves the problem entirely. The threat is a "The Shining" axe murderer scenerio where the attacker realized the door/lock/frame is significantly stronger than the barrier wall they are mounted in.

      Kicking down a door is completely possible and happens all the time. Locks are a moot point. Drilling out a lock will take 5-10 minutes max. Sure the pilot could crash the plane, but you are ignoring any human element. Pilots do not want to crash their own plane. You're assuming a 100% logical and thought-out response like the pilot is a computer.

      Your ceramic knife example is a total and complete joke. This is reality, not a Quentin Tarantino film. In your fantasy world, a single defender can overcome 40-1 odds in CQC using a kitchen given strategic positioning and a kitchen knife. In practice, the hijackers would be as fucked as a bouncer at a Great White concert.

      Odds would be 40-1, assuming that everyone on the plane is an able-bodied individual. What about kids, the disabled, elderly, and the cowards (Anonymous type)? In reality, only 7% of the country has ever served in the military, i.e. trained at some point to prevent this sort of threat. Was unable to find numbers for police officers, but it would be a safe assumption to say police officers make up a smaller percentage, and there is significant overlap. For argument's sake, assume 10% of the population has police/military experience. That means 20 people trained to defend themselves against 5 who are armed. Also keep in mind you must remove the elderly and disabled, disabled category = 20% of US population and elderly ~ 10%. So now we have 5 armed hijackers fighting against 14 properly trained individuals who are unarmed. Since the percentage of the US population serving in the military since 2001 is actually 0.45%, we can also safely assume that of the 14 veteran military and police, that only one will have served since 2001. Due to the makeup of the military, there is a roughly 30% that servicemember has actually served in direct combat. So the final tally is....

      5 armed hijackers versus 1 servicemember (30% chance of direct combat experience) who has served since 2001 and 13 police/veterans who have not.

      Also, BTW metal detectors are not looking for strongly magnetic objects, They look for objects above a certain density threshold which most/all ceramic knives will still set off. These detectors are least sensitive near the floor which is why the shoe bomber hid the detonator in his shoe, and why I suspect many metal detectors now have traction plate ramps preventing you from shuffling your feet through the scanner. Thanks for buying in to the urban legend though.

      Citation please? Have not found a single article to back up anything which you have said.

      If the TSA is supposed to prevent airline bombings(a threat of questionable merit relative to hundreds of softer targets where 300 deaths would be easier to achieve) then they are doing a shitty job. The plane is most vulnerable on takeoff and landing, but because of the economics of the situation(real estate is expensive), practically every airport in the world leaves their landing strips exposed to the effective range of traditional man-portable weapons.

      So how many American planes have been shot down with a MANPAD?

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    132. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's simpler than that. Many of the passengers would just climb over the seats to reach the attackers once they saw that the aisles were backed up. The seats are speedbumps at best, once the passengers decide that bum-rushing the attackers is their best option.

      Sparticus789 is hilariously assuming that real life works like a Counterstrike map where any obstacles that can't be bunny-hopped over are impassible.

    133. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually about crony capitalism, and giving your tax dollars to their rich friends, who have a new security theatre company. It's called Disaster capitalism. It's been going on for about 70 years now.

    134. Re:Note to TSA by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that after killing the first three or four, all he's managed to do is block the walkway. What now, Mr. Smarty-Highjacker?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    135. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're crazy.

      You're paranoid of terrorism and he's the crazy one? I hope you're just a paranoid coward and weren't defending the TSA.

    136. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? Why would you think that? In most people's minds "9/1 == WTC", and the Pentagon is an afterthought at best.

      Why is that? Probably some combination of the lower death toll at the Pentagon, the fact that it was a military target, the fact that unlike the WTC it wasn't destroyed (on film no less!), and the fact that the Pentagon wasn't an iconic part of the skyline for America's most famous city.

      But regardless, I think you have it backwards. If it had just been the Pentagon that was hit (or if the WTC had only been damaged like in 1993), 9/11 would probably occupy the same area in the national dialogue as OKC or the Cole.

    137. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was responding to the AC poster thinking that a metal scanner and locked cockpit doors would do just fine for airline security.

      Even if they aren't, that's the only kind that must be allowed. You have an astronomically small chance of being in a terrorist attack, and freedom must never be surrendered for safety.

    138. Re:Note to TSA by schlachter · · Score: 3, Funny

      My grandmother had her knitting needles confiscated. They were afraid she's create an Afgan.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    139. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Constitution makes no reference for that kind of thing.

      It also doesn't mention slander, libel, or any restrictions upon free speech. Who said it was meant to be interpreted literally?

      They aren't denying people the right to fly

      Neither is the TSA (most of the time); that doesn't make it right. Rather than harassing people because some idiot thinks they're acting suspiciously, I believe we need to get over our fear of terrorism and accept that it's astronomically unlikely that we'll die in one.

      Go back to metal detectors and accept that there will always be casualties in this world.

      private businesses do it every day and no one says a word

      Thank goodness I don't have to spend my money at those places! The government doing it in the name of security is far, far different than a private company doing it. The government is extremely powerful and can far more easily ruin people's lives. Let's not give them any more power than is needed.

    140. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said AC.

    141. Re:Note to TSA by EricScott · · Score: 1

      Or just depressurize the cabin and wait for everyone to pass out.

    142. Re:Note to TSA by sjames · · Score: 2

      The previous measures were much cheaper, much more polite, much quicker, and didn't involve fondling genitalia. They didn't do stupid things like reminding us that we cannot have a leaf blower in our carry on.

      It may well have been a waste, but it was a small waste and didn't assault human dignity.

    143. Re:Note to TSA by sjames · · Score: 1

      Your ceramic knife isn't going to get you in the cockpit. It won't save you from a mob of passengers who want to strangle you either.

      I guess you've never tried to set off plastic explosive.

    144. Re:Note to TSA by sjames · · Score: 1

      And yet everyone since 9/11 who has tried ANYTHING during a flight has ended up trussed up like a turkey.

    145. Re:Note to TSA by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 1

      So tell me, how many wars have you fought?

      By myself or me with whose army?

      --
      "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
    146. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't bother. His UID is like 2.6 million, he probably joined like 5 minutes ago.

    147. Re:Note to TSA by xenobyte · · Score: 1

      Banning passengers and crew from all flights is the only effective method.

      This will also remove many of the delays, as the planes just sit there. There are where they are and never going anywhere.

      Actually, the half-solution will also work. Flying with just the crew will still be a lot safer than today as 99.99999% of all terrorists are passengers, and without the need for bording, luggage handling and cleaning between flights it will be much easier to depart on time. Also, in case of a crash, much less lives are lost.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    148. Re:Note to TSA by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Call me crazy, but wouldn't a metal scanner and the cockpit doors being locked be more than good enough to prevent a new 9/11 type scenario?

      It would prevent stuff like a crowbar or whatever being taken in, ...

      What do you need a crowbar for? A metal object isn't the only thing that can be used as a weapon.
      Get rid of the metal scanner, just lock the door.

    149. Re:Note to TSA by xenobyte · · Score: 1

      OH GREAT. Now we'll have scans to get to the lines for the scanners.

      But then those lines can be blown up... So we need scans to get in line for the scans to get in line for the scans to get in the line for scans [...] ...

      I say we nuke the site from orbit! - It's the only way to be sure...

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    150. Re:Note to TSA by xenobyte · · Score: 1

      The same people that bring golf bags the size of a small house, or some stick/pole that's 8 feet long and still loaded as regular luggage so it will mess up the luggage conveyor belts and cause bags to fall off on their way up to the claim area.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    151. Re:Note to TSA by xenobyte · · Score: 1

      No, there will be no standoff except in very rare cases. The confined space of the cabin works in the passengers favor. If the hijacker is armed with a gun he might be able to kill or incapacitate the first one or two passengers that charge him, but from then on he'll have no room to move (the hurt passengers won't vanish, they'll fall around him and on him) and then the second wave will go for him and he'll be down for good. If the weapon is a knife or similar he'll at best get a few stabs in on the closest of the attackers and then they're on him quite literary and he's down and out.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    152. Re:Note to TSA by xenobyte · · Score: 1

      Another option is to make a locking mechanism that can only be unlocked when the plane has landed and the proper security codes have been activated. It's hard to get into the cockpit when even the pilot cannot let you in.

      That's the time-release safe method. No matter how big a gun you threaten with or how many people you kill, that safe ain't going to open until it's time. Nobody at all can do anything to change this. This way, the number of robberies are cut way down. Sure, you'll still get the small time crooks that just wants the money in the register, but as all larger bills are transferred to the safe through a slot, the loot would be minimal. The big-time crooks know they can't get at the safe and go somewhere else.

      Of course there's no accounting for human stupidity... Here in Denmark we had an attempted robbery a few months back where the crooks used explosives to access the safety deposit box in a bank... that worked just fine, but they got nothing for their efforts because that branch was closed and had been for several months. The building was essentially empty - no furniture, no curtains... but the signs on the facade was still there which was probably what fooled the robbers... But a quick look inside would have revealed the emptiness and futility of the attempt... What a fail.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    153. Re:Note to TSA by JustOK · · Score: 1

      Wrong half. Soon, the crews will be working from home.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    154. Re:Note to TSA by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      My grandmother had her knitting needles confiscated. They were afraid she's create an Afgan.

      My karma for modpoints...

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    155. Re:Note to TSA by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      Yes, because aerosol anesthetic worked so well in Moscow. Anesthesia is a very delicate science when you're handling a single creature. When you've got people of all ages, sizes and healths in the mix you don't want to attempt a mass anesthesia.

      Math on air marshal on every flight:
      1. There are 30,000 flights per day in the US. Let's assume an air marshal can do two flights per day. That means we need 15,000 air marshals, minimum.
      2. Air marshal salary is on the order of 60k per year (plus benefits).

      An air marshal on every flight would cost about $900M per year in salary costs alone assuming they never get days off. With time off, working 4.75 days out of every 7 you'd need about half again as many air marshals bringing you to $1.35B per year. Add benefits and costs of another fifty percent you're looking at about $2B per year. Add support staff at 80% salary and 15% staffing and you get another $250M totaling $2.25B per year.

      By comparison, the TSA has spent on the order of $100M on scanners and their staffing costs for the TSA officers that operate the checkpoints would be orders of magnitude less than an air marshal on every flight because a TSA officer can clear so many more passengers per day than the air marshals.

      Of course, that's a pure cost comparison, not an effectiveness comparison. As it stands, however, air marshals don't really seem to do very much and their deterrent effect is questionable at best because of their rarity and the ease of spotting them.

    156. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, see, he expects there to be a convenient USB port or something to plug the laptop into and it will toss up a pretty progress bar that fills up and then says "ACCESS GRANTED", because he saw the ATM scene in Terminator 2 and thinks that's how hacking works.

    157. Re:Note to TSA by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Here's my problem with this philosophy: there is no fundamental difference between the TSA and the myriad of private companies that handled airport security for decades prior to 9/11.

      There is a fundamental difference. Now it is the government doing it. It is easier to sue a private party than it is to sue the government.
      I ALWAYS hated the security checks. Never made sense to me, now it is worse. "Sir, please place your water bottle full of suspected explosives, in the container with the other suspected explosives"
      Most of the things don't make sense. "Take out your computer...cause you know, we can't see through your hard drive, and no one would ever hide something IN the harddrive"
      "Here let me swab your skin, cause, while you are smart enough to build explosives, you are too stupid to wear protective gear."
      "Hmmm you have something in this bag, I think it might be an explosive, so let me punch it hard" (This actually happened to me, as the TSA agent proceeded to beat the shit out of my pumpkin bread, while it was still in my back pack.
      Prior to 9/11 security was stupid, and inane. After 9/11 it was worse.

    158. Re:Note to TSA by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Yea, we could never replicate Israel.

      Why do we need need to replicate Israel? Why do we need to do anything?

    159. Re:Note to TSA by firex726 · · Score: 1

      In comparison to the TSA they have a very non-intrusive and effective airport screening setup.

    160. Re:Note to TSA by toddestan · · Score: 1

      And why exactly can't Isreal's method be scaled up? People make this assertion here, but never back it up with any reasons other than "the US is big". I can see legal reasons why it may not work here, but we have plenty of manpower available if we wanted to.

    161. Re:Note to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  3. Fly naked by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's the only way to be sure...

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:Fly naked by rastan · · Score: 1

      Actually, changing clothes at security to provided, standardized suits and have your clothes packed together and transported in the luggage compartment should be fairly safe as well. Of course, everyone would look the same in flight then...

      --
      Understanding is a three-edged sword. --Kosh
    2. Re:Fly naked by Walterk · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's been tried. Apparently it doesn't even qualify for indecent expose if you claim it's a protest..

    3. Re:Fly naked by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Two anecdotes (youtube videos) spring to mind:
      - One lady, taking matters into her own hands, went to the airport dressed only in a bikini. She was waved through with no scan, no patdown.
      - One gentleman was stopped by security and patted down. During the patdown, the actions of the agent caused his trousers to fall so his underwear was exposed. He was arrested for indecent exposure.

      So a woman wearing what is practically underwear is waved through, but a man in a jumper and trousers who has the latter pulled down by an agent is arrested for indecent exposure, despite being far more clothed than the woman.

      Your country is all kinds of messed up.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    4. Re:Fly naked by Entropius · · Score: 2

      I *would* fly naked if they'd let me skip the damned checkpoints.

    5. Re:Fly naked by naranek · · Score: 1

      I thought nuking from the orbit was the only way. I guess I'd better try this first next time...

      --
      Only dumb birds land downwind.
    6. Re:Fly naked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn you! Damn you to hell!!

      You just provided the unassailable argument FOR the TSA and their practices.

      Please TSA. Nudie scan AND grope everybody. Protect us - not from terrorists, but from having to see naked slashdotters!

    7. Re:Fly naked by uniquename72 · · Score: 1

      You can't be arrested for indecent exposure for showing your underwear.

    8. Re:Fly naked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only in Oregon. Your state may feel differently about you being naked in public.

    9. Re:Fly naked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. They'll just introduce anal and vaginal probes.

    10. Re:Fly naked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can't be arrested for indecent exposure for showing your underwear.

      Oh, you can be arrested and even charged. They may not be able to convict you, but that's a different matter entirely.

    11. Re:Fly naked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't be arrested for indecent exposure for showing your underwear.

      Sure you can, doesn't mean the charges will stick. But you can always work out the details down at the station.

    12. Re:Fly naked by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Depends on the underwear.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  4. Power Trip by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The people who manage this agency are on a powertrip. They are the "nosy neighbor" types who love to spy on other people, and being in control of the TSA (and the overall Dept. of Homeland Security) allows them to do what they love to do. Be nosy. They nudebody scan you at airports, rifle through your luggage, do random spots checks along highways, at bus depots, and train stations. They've even surprised citizens at post offices and malls and public parks by demanding IDs and performing warrantless searches of backpacks, purses, et cetera. They've detained & arrested people who were doing nothing wrong except posting on facebook.

    It's about time that we Americans Stand Up and start saying, "No. Do you have a warrant? Then no you may not search me at the mall, in the train station, in my car, or pour shit in my drinks." As the ACLU recently told citizens of DC:
    No warrant; no search.
    No warrant; no search.

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    1. Re:Power Trip by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      or pour shit in my drinks.

      Ahem... What now? They pour substances into your drinks? Are you expected to continue drinking them?

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:Power Trip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      or pour shit in my drinks.

      Ahem... What now? They pour substances into your drinks? Are you expected to continue drinking them?

      Yes, unless you are afraid the anti-terrorist molecules might expose your hatred of Truth, Justice and The American Way.

    3. Re:Power Trip by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      I love Truth and Justice. But the post-9/11 American Way...not so much.

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

      Perhaps the intelligence level of our citizenry would better understand it phrased like this:

      You may not search me in the mall,
      You may not search me in the hall.
      You may not search me on a train,
      You may not search me in the rain.
      You may not ask for my ID,
      You may not watch me while I pee.
      You may not fondle my junk,
      You may not look in my trunk.
      You may not stop me on my way,
      You may not make me stay.
      You may not trample my rights,
      FUCK YOU TSA.

    5. Re:Power Trip by waferbuster · · Score: 1

      There are too many links for this topic, so here's my quickie google search. Pick your article! https://www.google.com/search?q=tsa+liquid+drink+eyedropper

      --
      I'm an individual! Just like everyone else!
  5. Theft of the public money. by fredrated · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nothing less than that. It's what government does today. I say that as a life-time Democrat that used to think the government could do some good.

  6. Public decency... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lame, its always been a good excuse for me to be naked in public, well at least they will continue to trample over my constitutional rights...

  7. Just wait until they go "green" by concealment · · Score: 2

    Third generation will be a (recycled) latex glove and lotion. We'll stop those terrorists from hiding their weapons in places we're afraid to look!

    1. Re:Just wait until they go "green" by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Third generation will be a (recycled) latex glove and lotion. We'll stop those terrorists from hiding their weapons in places we're afraid to look!

      Fourth Gen - we skip the lotion.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  8. Nobody could have predicted this... by Art+Challenor · · Score: 1

    And, I assume (without RTFA) that it's the same suppliers and that these scanners will have flaws that cause them to be upgraded again in a few years.

  9. These new scanners are fake by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    You walk through a cardboard box with a frosted plexiglass window on one side and a drop light shining from the other. 245 mil will get you one.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  10. It means by JustOK · · Score: 1

    2nd generation means they scan yer gonads to see if your offspring are/will be terrorists.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
    1. Re:It means by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Actually, it makes sure that your future offspring won't be terrorists.

      Of course, it does that by making you unable to have offspring, but don't worry. This bug will be fixed in the 3rd generation of scanners which will only cost the TSA $350 million in a few years.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  11. "incapable of actually detecting hidden objects." by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah. But, hey! I mean naked

    Hard to go wrong there. Or it's wrong to go hard there. Or... You know.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  12. IDIQ is old news by alen · · Score: 1

    when i was in the army in the 90's IDIQ contracts were used to buy computers. it's just a price sheet that's updated a few times a year for some products. it just means there is no set quantity or delivery schedule for the contract

  13. Where is Romney on this? by Overzeetop · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Talk about a huge cost to US businesses. The number of additional man-hours lost daily is staggering. With the "enhanced" security you can plan on an extra 1-1.5 hours of transit time each way on every single trip. That almost 1.8 billion hours spent every single year on worthless "security". At typical billing rates, that's over 100 Billion dollars a year of wasted time.

    I don't hear any outrage from the right. I wonder why...

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Where is Romney on this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can hear it from me. It is a reactive security that has caught very little (other than dumb criminals). All programs must be cut. *ALL*. If you find someone who says 'well except that one' they are not being realistic about the budget fiasco... Or saying things like 'do not raise taxes' also unrealistic. My only thing with raising taxes is I would like to see a real effort to fix the budget before you start talking 'lets rake in more money'. If you can not do that you are not being realistic again.

    2. Re:Where is Romney on this? by mellon · · Score: 0

      All it's really done is eliminated the stories people tell about arriving at the airport 30 minutes before their flight and still getting on the plane. I haven't changed my arrival time _at all_ since 9/11. Because I always arrived with plenty of time to spare, because there have always been delays at the airport, or getting to the airport.

      My main beef with the pornoscanners is that they are political patronage—somebody's friend is getting $245 million of our tax dollars to build machines that won't work and will be harmful to the health of the people who are forced to pass through them. So effectively we are getting screwed twice. Remember, the Matrix has you.

    3. Re:Where is Romney on this? by Kozz · · Score: 0

      I don't hear any outrage from the right. I wonder why...

      Shhhh! "Job Creation".

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    4. Re:Where is Romney on this? by mellon · · Score: 1

      BTW, there has been a substantial amount of outrage from the right. But the reason it's not unanimous is that of course when you fly on a private jet, you don't have to go through TSA security anyway. And if, God forbid, you have to fly commercial first class, they are introducing special lines for you that allow you to bypass all the stupid hoi polloi security stuff and go back to the way things were before 9/11, except that now the hoi polloi are in a different line, so you don't have to associate with them as much.

    5. Re:Where is Romney on this? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      I'm okay with putting Ron Paul on "the right" but I really think he needs to be identified as either very high or very low on the imaginary axis as well.

      FWIW, I happened to luck into a FC ticket last year, and the security line was a breeze. I also agree that there is little outrage from the driving voices in the party because private jet service is exempt. Thank goodness it's impossible to hijack a private jet and fly it into a building. O.o

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    6. Re:Where is Romney on this? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      No, it can't be job creation. Every Republican worth mentioning these days is beating the mighty drum of smaller government. Now, that means eliminating either federal jobs or contractor jobs because, surprise - most federal dollars buy labor domestic things, with a relatively small fraction going to imported things - or are handouts to people who spend the money almost instantly (not many welfare recipients sitting on huge bank over seas accounts or investment portfolios).

      I think they're hawkishness blinds them from the inefficiency, just as it does when the pentagon budget comes up.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    7. Re:Where is Romney on this? by swillden · · Score: 1

      All it's really done is eliminated the stories people tell about arriving at the airport 30 minutes before their flight and still getting on the plane. I haven't changed my arrival time _at all_ since 9/11. Because I always arrived with plenty of time to spare

      So for people like you it hasn't cost anything. There are many, many other business travelers (like me) who in fact used to arrive 30-45 minutes before the flight, as a matter of habit -- and it saved a lot of time! My office was a very reliable 15 minutes from the airport, I parked where I could walk to the terminal, and had getting through security down to an art (and leveraged my frequent flyer status to use the short line). Maybe one flight in 20 I missed the plane because of some unanticipated delay, and the hour or two it cost me in those cases was far more than offset by all the time I didn't spend waiting the rest of the trips.

      Now, of course, I arrive at the airport 90 minutes beforehand, or 60 minutes if I happen to know that it's a low-traffic time of day. Thankfully, ubiquitous Wifi has partially offset the time lost, but not completely.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    8. Re:Where is Romney on this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because there isn't any cost to the businesses (directly)... it merely tolls on the souls of their workers, which they think of as a good thing I'm sure. Most people who travel for work and are stuck at airports a lot (myself included), are salary, and it's no skin off the companies back for me having to lose sleep or get up at a rediculous time just because of going through security. They see it as part of going to work (i.e. we don't pay the office people for waiting in traffic on the way to the office, why should we pay you)

    9. Re:Where is Romney on this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the right" and the "conservative" are not the same thing - they should be, but they are not.

      The conservative is fully against this violation of 4th amendment protections, believe me. And we are working to make sure "the right" is as well. You should join us.

    10. Re:Where is Romney on this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't hear any outrage from the right. I wonder why...

      Because anyone that rich has a private plane and doesn't go through security at all.

  14. Trolling by MightyYar · · Score: 2

    I love a good incendiary summary as much as the next guy, but isn't this a bit blatant, even for Slashdot?

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    1. Re:Trolling by hawguy · · Score: 2

      I love a good incendiary summary as much as the next guy, but isn't this a bit blatant, even for Slashdot?

      Given that the incendiary parts of the summary linked to two previous Slashdot articles titled Congress: The TSA Is Wasting Hundreds of Millions In Taxpayer Dollars and The Ineffectiveness of TSA Body Scanners - Now With Surveillance Camera Footage, then no, I don't think it sounds blatantly incendiary for Slashdot since it's just repeating what they've said before.
       

    2. Re:Trolling by mellon · · Score: 1

      You don't think $245 million on another TSA boondoggle is newsworthy?

    3. Re:Trolling by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Calling the spending "wasteful" is certainly opinionated and will certainly spark discussion and clicks. Calling the machines "nude-o-scopes" takes it into MoveOn territory.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:Trolling by hawguy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Calling the spending "wasteful" is certainly opinionated and will certainly spark discussion and clicks. Calling the machines "nude-o-scopes" takes it into MoveOn territory.

      That may very well be the case, yet it's not the first time Slashdot has expressed this sentiment so you shouldn't be surprised to see it again. You may not realize that the whole purpose Slashdot exists is to spark discussion (and clicks, which is how they get paid) -- without discussion, I think few people would come here since the submissions that are posted largely come from other news sources. I didn't see your comments on either of the previous two Slashdot postings, so feel free to comment and explain why you think that the statements are over the top and unfair. That's why everyone is here, right?

    5. Re:Trolling by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      Newsworthy, sure. But I expect some technical details, policy debate, etc. Starting the discussion off by calling the machines "nude-o-scopes" is probably not the best way to generate a productive discussion.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    6. Re:Trolling by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I'm not really interested in 6th-grade playground name-calling. I like Slashdot for the more mature or technical discussions. I can get knee-jerk stuff anywhere. CNN and YouTube are awesome examples of pure useless seafoam in the comments section.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    7. Re:Trolling by GlennC · · Score: 1

      I think I see the problem. It looks like you're expecting rational, productive debate. I'm afraid that isn't possible in the United States any more. There's not much money in that.

      Name-calling and other juvenile invective ensures more partisans stay tuned, which means the networks' ad rates go up.

      --
      Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
    8. Re:Trolling by mellon · · Score: 1

      Policy debate? There's never any debate about the shit that the TSA does—it's always presented as a fait accomplis. We have to accept it, because we can't fly if we don't, and we don't get to debate it. When courts have demanded that the TSA hold hearings on their stupid policies, the TSA ignores them. So no, we are not at all obliged to start off the discussion by respecting the TSA's position. In fact, were we to do so, we would effectively be conceding before we started.

      Let the TSA explain to us why they need to spend tax dollars on this boondoggle.

    9. Re:Trolling by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I meant debate about policy here on Slashdot.

      There's no policy debate at the national level because the two major parties are so similar, especially on this matter.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    10. Re:Trolling by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      You got it.

      Don't get me wrong - there is plenty of juvenile comments on Slashdot, but there is enough meat here to keep reading. If the freaking editors set the bar so low I'm afraid this will change.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  15. Should me micro, not X rays by LeDopore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think it's a bad move that they chose X rays instead of THz for this generation. THz rays can't hurt you, while the TSA has been preventing independent safety analyses of the backscatter X ray machines.

    The total dose of backscatter X rays is low, but it's so concentrated that it might still be a problem. Cancer risk grows superlinearly with exposure, so concentrating exposure to skin effectively amplifies the effects of the small dose. Independent medical researchers are not permitted to investigate these machines, so we don't actually know if they present a problem. We're not all going to die, but it could be that choosing X rays over microwaves will result in a few dozen extra cancer deaths per year, in which case it's a bad move.

    In any case, microwave scanners are probably just as effective (read that how you will), so I'm surprised the TSA doubled down on the potentially risky bet that X ray backscatter technology is going to remain legal.

    --
    Expected time to finish is 1 hour and 60 minutes.
    1. Re:Should me micro, not X rays by Hatta · · Score: 2

      We're not all going to die, but it could be that choosing X rays over microwaves will result in a few dozen extra cancer deaths per year, in which case it's a bad move.

      Not that the TSA cares. The harsh screenings encourage people to drive instead of fly, which leads to hundreds of extra deaths per year. The TSA is not about safety at all.

      I'm surprised the TSA doubled down on the potentially risky bet that X ray backscatter technology is going to remain legal.

      That just means that if X-ray machines are banned, the TSA will get to buy new machines again. This serves their actual pupose, directing public money into the hands of well connected business people.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Should me micro, not X rays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's very likely that they're betting on them becoming illegal. this way, when these become illegal, they will get to order a set of different scanners, with new money, and everybody will be happy

    3. Re:Should me micro, not X rays by Criton · · Score: 1

      The scanners should have never reviled naked pictures either even a mac quadra from 1992 is fast enough to identify and remove any reflection that is from flesh in real time leaving the contra ban seemingly floating in the air. That just showed how shady the companies that make these scanners are since they'd sent them out with completely unfinished software that's not even beta level.

  16. Better way to spend that money by wbr1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Step 1, cavity search flyers. Step 2, insert rolled $20 into said cavity. You may find more and actually leave a few people happy at the taxes.you just returned!

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  17. Just a little bit of history repeating... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's OK, as the (T)SA collects more and more power to themselves, the regular army and law enforcement will come to resent them, at which point the leadership of the day will have to shut them down to save face and further their agenda. By then though, the damage will have already been done.

  18. Post Removed by Iskender · · Score: 4, Funny

    This post was removed due to Dice content standards violations.

    1. Re:Post Removed by evilRhino · · Score: 1

      I can't tell if this is a thing now or a troll...

    2. Re:Post Removed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This post was removed due to Dice content standards violations.

    3. Re:Post Removed by mcgrew · · Score: 0

      YHBT. HAND. Proof?

      DICE SUX0RZ!!!!

      See, still there. Probably modded offtopic, as it should be, but it's there. If Dice were going to remove a comment, do you think they would advertise the fact with bold type? No, they'd simply remove it quietly.

    4. Re:Post Removed by zlives · · Score: 1

      -1 diced

    5. Re:Post Removed by Soulskill · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's a troll. No posts are being removed.

    6. Re:Post Removed by humanrev · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't consider it a troll. Trolls post stuff to deliberately rile people up (e.g. Linux vs Windows flamewars), whereas as this fellow is making a joke about Slashdot's new owners. Everyone knows he's joking, or at least enough people do, hence the Funny mod. Trolls don't normally get funny mods.

      --
      Most people on Slashdot are fucking idiots.
    7. Re:Post Removed by Lanteran · · Score: 1

      You know this is a joke?

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
  19. No surprise by kiriath · · Score: 1

    TSA won't stop until they have seen EVERYONE naked.

    Ultimate government funded pervert society...

    1. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TSA won't stop until they have seen EVERYONE naked.

      Someone please tell the TSA that this is what the Internet is for.

  20. well well well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    they can even spend $245 trillion.. I just don't care and don't travel any more to this shit country called USA.

  21. No... by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1

    It means the pictures get automatically uploaded to Facebook, with face recognition for tagging. Remember "Privacy is dead, get over it?"

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  22. Weakest link principle by kye4u · · Score: 2

    Why are they expending money on new versions of the scanners when not all airports have the first version?

    Even if one assumed that the scanners could detect everything (which they can't), it would make since to at least have a version 1 scanner at all the airports.

    So TSA purchases version 2 scanners that go into some airports. Terrorists just go to airports that have version 1. Oh wait, they can just go to airports that don't have any scanners. Weakest link principle.

    1. Re:Weakest link principle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Allow me to correct a simple misunderstanding...the scanners have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with security, or even security theater. Their sole purpose is to provide something tangible (if not functional) for which hundreds of million of dollars can be funneled to the scanner company owners, who are colleagues of the people that approved the expenditure of the money. As an added bonus, the flying public (for now) is cowed into subservience.

      Same dynamic as the voting machines, although in that case, the vote-rigging function was the added bonus.

    2. Re:Weakest link principle by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      Why are they expending money on new versions of the scanners when not all airports have the first version?

      I think we all know the answer to that:
      Because as soon as they deploy a few dozen "new generation" machines (and these prove to be useless too), they can start drafting large contracts for "3rd generation" scanner machines.

      What we need to do is to claw back money paid for any machine that provably doesn't do what it was bought for (i.e. detect dangerous objects). Maybe once a couple of contractor firms are sued into oblivion, others will slow down.

  23. Who is responsible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who can we hold responsible for this purchase?

  24. Re:Attention Obama Drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, wait, which president was it that founded the organization in the first place?

    Or are we pretending that 2000-2008 never happened, now? That's the new party policy, right, where Clint Eastwood rants to an empty chair about the wars Obama started in Iraq and Afghanistan?

  25. Re:And probably an overpaid unionized workforce by Entropius · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Bush is the one who gave us the TSA, and started overpaying them in the first place. You really think Romney'd change anything?

  26. Technology! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The latest machines can actually photograph your bone marrow, in case you smuggle a shoe bomb in there. Of course it also gives you horrific cancer but that's OK, so long as it's in the interest of safety.

  27. You don't say by AntiBasic · · Score: 1

    They told me if I voted for McCain, we'd see an administration more beholden the military industrial complex and even more wasteful than ever before... and they were right.

    1. Re:You don't say by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      If you take an outside expert and place politicians by their words or actions using a uniform test and a placement system that is not childishly simplistic... you get this interesting chart from the best political website on earth:

      http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
      http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

      Notice where McCain was and where Obama ended up (also remember in 2008 Obama was more talk because there wasn't much of a record to place him. Everybody shifts quite a bit from talk vs action. Sadly the site doesn't do charts on both, but does tend to use action over talk when possible.)

  28. Re:Attention Obama Drones by Entropius · · Score: 2

    Romney sure isn't going to stand up for my individual liberties. Dig Eisenhower out of his grave (or maybe Goldwater) and I'll vote for a conservative.

  29. Not passing the sniff test... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure it this story is true. It just doesn't pass the the sniff test.
    1) The last time TSA bought hardware, none of it was backscatter.
    2) A contract like this would be a major payday to a company like AS&E. Something the CEO & board of directors would want the shareholders to know. But this contract isn't mentioned in the press release section of their web page. The latest press release is a "$19.9 million service, maintenance, and spare parts order from an undisclosed customer". No new hardware, just a service contract for existing stuff.

    I think TSA management is more interested in job security then passenger security but this story seems full of "truthfulness".

  30. If they're doing it wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or pour shit in my drinks.

    Ahem... What now? They pour substances into your drinks? Are you expected to continue drinking them?

    More bullshit from the TSA -- they have unilaterally claimed the power to check any liquid even after the security checkpoint. The procedure, as described here, involves holding a swab over the opening to the liquid container and then putting a drop of some kind of solution on the swab, presumably to look for some kind of chemical reaction. There could have been some confusion at some point either with the victim of this procedure (thinking the TSA agent was adding a reagent directly to their beverage), or with the TSA goon themselves (actually adding the reagent directly to the victim's beverage). More at Google.

  31. You forgot to add the Congressional Medal of Honor by CQDX · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Apparently the TSA agents didn't know what a MoH is and were supsicious because the medal is the shape of a star and feared it might be used like a Japanese shuriken (throwing star)! Never mind that the guy they didn't trust was a WWII ace, a retired general, and form governor. http://www.snopes.com/military/medal.asp The meme used to be if you weren't smart enough to get into college, you could join the Army. I think now it's you can join the TSA.

  32. At least they are doing one thing right... by erp_consultant · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The TSA has this program now called Fly By. It's a voluntary program that has been rolled out to a few airports (lucky my hometown airport is one of them). If you join up - and remember it's voluntary - the TSA will do a background check on you. If all goes well then the next time you go to the airport you get whisked over to a special line at security. You don't have to take your shoes off, you don't have to take your belt off, you don't have to take out your toiletry bag. You just put your stuff on the belt and walk through the x-ray machine. Easy, peesy. Now, I still can't bring through a bottle of water and I'm still subject to the regulations that other passengers are but still...this is a Godsend for frequent flyers and a model for how airport security should be done. It's fast and convenient and still provides a measure of safety.

    I've been critical of the TSA in the past but this time they got it right.

    However, back to the article at hand. Don't you think it might make sense to try these new things out in the field before awarding an IDIQ contract? I haven't read the contract but it sounds suspiciously like some of the other government contracts in that the supplier gets paid no matter what. If something goes wrong then you have to sign another contract, and pay more money, to get it fixed.

    I've worked with many government agencies over the years as a contractor, and many years ago, as an employee. The big problem, as I see it, is not so much the people that work there it's the procurement system. The rules and the hoops you have to jump through to get anything done is just appalling. Often, the rules prevent you from making the best purchasing decision. No private company could survive under the same set of rules. That - as much as anything else - is what is contributing to the massive waste in government today.

    1. Re:At least they are doing one thing right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's fast and convenient and still provides a measure of safety.

      pick only 2 out of 3... do you really believe your claim that a background check will provide security?

    2. Re:At least they are doing one thing right... by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 1

      Actually I think an IDIQ contract is the way to go if you want to test one or two of them first. an IDIQ contract is almost like a price sheet. Just because you have the contract doesn't mean you'll ever get the full amount. The government could chose not to exercise the contract at all or it could for the full value but it's by no means a sure thing.

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    3. Re:At least they are doing one thing right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One issue I have with that:

      Background checks only catch repeat offenders. Suicide bombers, by their very nature, tend not to be repeat offenders. Ergo, they've just opened an immense hole in their so-called 'security'.

    4. Re:At least they are doing one thing right... by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected. Thanks for clarifying.

    5. Re:At least they are doing one thing right... by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

      Truthfully, I think the whole scenario is a charade. In the eyes of TSA it's safer. I do believe that it's faster and more convenient though. As long as I'm subjected to it I'd rather it be over quicker than not.

    6. Re:At least they are doing one thing right... by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

      You've got a good point there. If someone is really determined to bomb something there is very little that can be done to stop it. Just because someone has not created a crime YET does not mean they are not capable of creating one NOW.

    7. Re:At least they are doing one thing right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you always live your life so subjectively? If the TSA hadn't made a complete spectacle out of getting on an airplane would you still gleefully hand over your private information so they can do a background check on you?

      How about me...will you allow ME to do a background check on you for no reason at all? What if I grabbed you by the neck in public...would you THEN agree to let me do a background check on you in lieu of accosting you in a public place?

      Pussies like you are EXACTLY the reason the TSA continues to exist in the first place.

    8. Re:At least they are doing one thing right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've worked with many government agencies over the years as a contractor, and many years ago, as an employee. The big problem, as I see it, is not so much the people that work there it's the procurement system. The rules and the hoops you have to jump through to get anything done is just appalling.

      The rules and hoops are also there to minimize corruption. I'm not sure they can be removed completely.

    9. Re:At least they are doing one thing right... by lidocaineus · · Score: 1

      I fly over 250,000+ miles a year. I refuse to go through those damn porno scanners on the grounds that they're 1) a giant waste of money 2) provide little to no additional security. So while the Fly By program may work to speed things up, we wouldn't need them it if we didn't have ridiculous security theater to go through.

    10. Re:At least they are doing one thing right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent choice Comrade. No papers needed, just install this microchip.

    11. Re:At least they are doing one thing right... by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's a lot of miles! I agree with both of your assertions by the way. So what's the alternative for you if you're not using the scanners? Do you have to go through the pat down or have them open your luggage?

      The whole thing is idiotic...I just want to get through there as quickly as possible and get on with my business.

  33. Fuck the TSA... by Falkentyne · · Score: 0

    Sorry about the formatting.. too lazy to fix.

    Right about now NWA court is in full effect.
    Judge Dre presiding in the case of NWA versus the TSA.
    Prosecuting attourneys are MC Ren Ice Cube and Eazy muthafuckin E.
    Order order order. Ice Cube take the muthafuckin stand.
    Do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth
    and nothin but the truth so help your black ass?

    Why don't you tell everybody what the fuck you gotta say?

    Fuck tha TSA
    Comin straight from the underground, Young nigga got it bad cuz I'm brown, And not the other color so TSA think, They have the authority to probe a minority

    Fuck that shit, cuz I ain't tha one, For a punk muthafucka with a badge and a scanner, To be beatin on, and throwin in a cell, We could go toe to toe in the middle of an interrogation room

    Fuckin with me cuz I'm a teenager, With a little bit of gold and an iphone, Searchin my body, lookin for the bombs, Thinkin every nigga is a terrorist

    You'd rather see me in the pen, Then me and Lorenzo rollin in the Benzo, Beat tha TSA outta shape, And when I'm finished, bring the yellow tape, To tape off the scene of the slaughter, Still can't swallow bread and water

    I don't know if they fags or what, Search a nigga down and grabbin his nuts, And on the other hand, without a gun they can't get none, But don't let it be a black and a white one, Cuz they slam ya down to the street top, Black TSA Agent showin out for the white TSA Agent

    Ice Cube will swarm
    On any muthafucka in a TSA uniform
    Just cuz I'm from the CPT, punk TSA are afraid of me
    A young nigga on a warpath
    And when I'm finished, it's gonna be a bloodbath
    Of TSA, dyin in Airports
    Yo Dre, I got somethin to say

    Fuck the TSA (4X)

    M. C. Ren, will you please give your testimony to the jury about this fucked up incident.>

    Fuck tha TSA and Ren said it with authority
    because the niggaz on the street is a majority.
    A gang, is with whoever I'm stepping
    and the motherfuckin' weapon
    is kept in a stash box, for the so-called law
    wishin' Ren was a nigga that they never saw

    Lights start flashin behind me
    But they're scared of a nigga so they mace me to blind me
    But that shit don't work, I just laugh
    Because it gives em a hint not to step in my path

    To the TSA I'm sayin fuck you punk
    Readin my rights and shit, it's all junk
    Pullin out a silly club, so you stand
    With a fake assed badge and a scanner set up adjacent to you

    But turn off the scanner so you can see what's up
    And we'll go at it punk, I'ma fuck you up

    Make ya think I'm a kick your ass
    But drop your gat, and Ren's gonna blast
    I'm sneaky as fuck when it comes to crime
    But I'm a smoke em now, and not next time

    Smoke any muthafucka that sweats me
    Or any assho that threatens me
    I'm a sniper with a hell of a scope
    Takin out a TSA Agent or two, they can't cope with me

    The muthafuckin villian that's mad
    With potential to get bad as fuck
    So I'm a turn it around
    Put in my clip, yo, and this is the sound
    Ya, somethin like that, but it all depends on the size of the gat

    Takin out a TSA would make my day
    But a nigga like Ren don't give a fuck to say

    Fuck the TSA (4X)

    TSA, open now. We have a scanner for Eazy-E's arrest.
    Get down and put your hands up where I can see em.
    Just shut the fuck up and get your muthafuckin ass on the floor.
    [huh?]>

    and tell the jury how you feel abou this bullshit.>

    I'm tired of the muthafuckin jackin / Sweatin my gang while I'm chillin in the shackin / Shining tha light in my face, and for what / Maybe it's because I kick so much butt

    I kick ass, or maybe cuz I blast / On a stupid assed nigga when I'm playin with the trigga / Of any Uzi or an AK / Cuz the TSA always got somethin stupid to say

    They put up my picture with silence / Cuz my identity by itself causes violence / The E with the criminal behavior / Yeah, I'm a gansta, but still I got flavor

    Without a scan

  34. Mark Fiore had it right the first time by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    They won't be happy until we get to this and remember, the white lines lead to red lines which lead to the detention centers..

    It's all about being "Perfectly Safe"

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  35. Re:"incapable of actually detecting hidden objects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    3 digit account and still you reply to trolls...

  36. What about the workers? by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

    The total dose of backscatter X rays is low, but it's so concentrated that it might still be a problem. Cancer risk grows superlinearly with exposure, so concentrating exposure to skin effectively amplifies the effects of the small dose. Independent medical researchers are not permitted to investigate these machines, so we don't actually know if they present a problem. We're not all going to die, but it could be that choosing X rays over microwaves will result in a few dozen extra cancer deaths per year, in which case it's a bad move.

    The typical response to this is that you get a higher dose of radiation when you fly at cruising altitude for a couple hours than you get going through the machine. That response doesn't answer all of your points, including the concentrated dose as opposed to a lower dose over time, but it hides an important question: if the TSA is saying the machines are "safe" because you're only in front of them for a few seconds, what about the TSA workers? I know we all love to hate on those incompetent and frequently criminal asshats, but they're just the grunts following policy from management and have no options other than quitting, and most of them are pretty unemployable.

    However, those workers spend hours every day, five days a week, standing around these poorly shielded machines that have been shown to leak. They don't wear radiation dosimeters, they haven't been allowed to form unions until just recently, and the TSA's response to safety questions is "the public is safe because they don't spend as much time around the machines as, say, the workers". I think it's much more likely that we're going to see a surge in cancer among TSA workers in a few years.

    Being a troublemaker, of course, I tell the screener all of this while they're doing my opt-out pat-down.

  37. Here's a cheaper way by CQDX · · Score: 5, Funny

    Get an infrared imaging system. Put it by the gate. Also at the gate, plaster it with those Dutch cartoons mocking Mohammad. Who ever shows up beet red on the monitor can't go aboard.

    1. Re:Here's a cheaper way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...plaster it with those Dutch cartoons mocking Mohammad.

      Perhaps you mean Danish?

    2. Re:Here's a cheaper way by vdorie · · Score: 1

      From Think Progress, April this year:

      Fifty-six percent of domestic terrorist attacks and plots in the U.S. since 1995 have been perpetrated by right-wing extremists, as compared to 30 percent by ecoterrorists and 12 percent by Islamic extremists.

      Maybe in air travel incidents you're correct (dunno, haven't looked into it), but the basic insinuation that all terrorism originates from Islamic extremists is misleading.

    3. Re:Here's a cheaper way by Criton · · Score: 1

      That actually might work.

  38. Re:Attention Obama Drones by Entropius · · Score: 2

    Romney's going to spend like a drunken warmonger, on the other hand.

  39. Re:And probably an overpaid unionized workforce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bush is the one who gave us the TSA, and started overpaying them in the first place. You really think Romney'd change anything?

    Obama certainly hasn't. Oh, how I wish the Republicans had nominated someone other than Obushba Lite.

  40. Re:Attention Obama Drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You ignore the point; you do not know Romney will be a disaster, but the facts are the facts, you KNOW Obama will be. If you really are conservative you have to vote against Obama and the only vote against him is Romney. Anything else helps elect Obama and you know it. You cannot justify anything else. Are you conservative? Then what it your plan?

    Plus we need to fill the Senate and the House with conservatives to keep Romney in check.

    This is an iterative process, you understand this right? This is how the left has gotten us where we are now, by using the iterative process against us.

    What is your plan?

  41. Re:You forgot to add the Congressional Medal of Ho by davester666 · · Score: 1

    No, the Army rejects go to try to become regular security guards. Those rejects then become TSA agents, based on their prior experience of applying to be a security guard.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  42. Re:And probably an overpaid unionized workforce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Bush gave us the TSA so Romney won't change anything? Dude, it's been years since Bush has been in office. The Obama administration could have thrown them out in the past 3.5 years and they did not.

    The TSA was formed under Bush, but do you think Gore or Kerry would have done any different? The TSA was created as a reaction to the public panic over 9/11. Any sitting President would have done the same thing, and to be honest not knowing what exactly was coming or what was going on, any President would have erred on the side over caution. Also, the TSA is not going away any time soon; an article posted on Slashdot awhile back showed that most people in the US think the TSA's doing a good job (news flash, Slashdot thinks they suck but the slashdot crowd is a small minority of the population and not even entirely American). Prove that the TSA is a waste of time and money and isn't doing anything, get the public against it, and then it won't matter whether Obama or Romney is President; they'll have to follow the will of the people if they want to get re-elected. Easier said than done, sure, but that's what it will take. Obama will not get rid of the TSA. Neither will Romney. But if the public is turned against the TSA, then either one as President will get rid of them.

  43. Corrections by blueg3 · · Score: 1

    ...the TSA has awarded an indefinite delivery / indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract, worth up to $245 Million...

    Headline says "spending" $245 million. An IDIQ contract is not at all the same as spending -- it is a vehicle through which money *can* be spent. TSA could use it to purchase between $0 and and $245 million in scanners. It doesn't even mean that there's money allocated in their budget for this.

    As previously reported, Jonathan Corbett proved that TSA's current nude-o-scopes are incapable of actually detecting hidden objects.

    No, he demonstrated that it is possible to conceal an object from the scanners. There are still plenty of hidden objects (in practice, most) that they can detect, so they are capable of actually detecting hidden objects. Just not all of them.

    If you're going to be inflammatory, at least get your facts half-right.

  44. cheaper alternative by slashmydots · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm not going to do the math but I bet it'd be cheaper to put an armed air marshal on every single US flight instead.

    1. Re:cheaper alternative by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      I got bored and did the math. It'd likely be in the 2-digit billions :-P But still, lol.

    2. Re:cheaper alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I'm not going to do the math but I bet it'd be cheaper to put an armed air marshal on every single US flight instead.

      As I understand it, with very few exceptions, this is already done.

  45. Wrong title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It should be 'The TSA is wasting your paid taxes by filling the coffers of some corporation'

  46. Re:Attention Obama Drones by Entropius · · Score: 1

    I'm not "conservative". I'm a classical liberal, as some folks define the term -- a philosophy closer to classical conservatism than to either Obama or Romney.

    Modern conservatives have pretty uniformly been disasters.

  47. Re:Attention Obama Drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the hell is "Modern conservatives", you don't even make any sense. You are avoiding all questions, a classical liberal is a conservative.

    This isn't about Obama or Romney personally. If you intend to engage in discussion then do so otherwise go away drone.

  48. Re:"incapable of actually detecting hidden objects by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    But I won't reply to yours...

    Oh wait... Damn!

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  49. Re:"incapable of actually detecting hidden objects by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    Yeah. But, hey! I mean naked

    Hard to go wrong there.

    Ummm...C4 will fit up people's asses. Even if we go totally naked the terrorists can still win.

    --
    No sig today...
  50. $245M value is a cap; IDIQ contracts are vehicles by novapyro · · Score: 1

    Don't you think it might make sense to try these new things out in the field before awarding an IDIQ contract? I haven't read the contract but it sounds suspiciously like some of the other government contracts in that the supplier gets paid no matter what. If something goes wrong then you have to sign another contract, and pay more money, to get it fixed.

    A few points:

    As part of the procurement and contract competition for AIT-2 (Advanced Imaging Technology - Second Generation) the bidders supplied machines which were used in live tests by the government, in real-life conditions. The performance of the machines in those tests was part of the evaluation and source selection process.

    The contract is Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity. This is the exact opposite of "You must pay no matter what." The TSA may buy up to $245M off this contract. However, it is not committed to buy anything at all. That's what ID/IQ means, and that flexibility is exactly why the government designed this type of procurement vehicle. It is a promise from the contractor that, should the government choose to do so, it may buy any amount of the goods or services at a pre-arranged, competitively-bid price. They may buy 100 of these machines. They may buy one. Or even none. The vendor is bound by the pre-negotiated terms, however. (To answer the "First they hook you, then they raise the price" complaint, I should say that even the out-year price increase is part of most procurements of this type. It is common for there to be some built in year-to-year price adjustment (generally called "escalation") to account for increasing out-year labor costs. However, that too is pre-negotiated, and set at the time of contract award. The effect being that every part of a vendor's price is subject to competition from other vendors at the time of proposal submittal.)

    Maintenance arrangements for any machines the TSA chooses to purchase are part of the procurement. Therefore, that is also pre-set. Further, it is part of the $245 contract value. It simply isn't possible for the vendor to surprise the TSA with new charges to fix broken devices.

    There may be many reasons to dislike the TSA in general, and their scanning machines in particular. But being upset about theoretical contract issues that people make up out of whole cloth isn't one of them, and it isn't very useful.

    I agree that the procurement system is cumbersome and slow. Very few people, either inside the government or out understand it. The people that do can earn quite a good living helping companies sell and government agencies buy. I know a few.

    Novaflyer

  51. Re:You forgot to add the Congressional Medal of Ho by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    "Prior experience"?

    Last time I checked the TSA were putting adverts on pizza boxes.

    --
    No sig today...
  52. Re:And probably an overpaid unionized workforce by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "The TSA was created as a reaction to the public panic over 9/11"

    The TSA was implemented by responding to the public panic over 9/11. I could argue its creation had been planned for YEARS - awaiting the PNAC anticipated "new Pearl Harbor" event. The whole of the voluminous "PATRIOT" act was obviously crafted through many years of effort. Only the final collation of this voluminous compendium of human oppression occurred after 9/11.

    The TSA is now an institution that will not be eradicated, without the complete dissolution of the USA.

    US out of North America, NOW!

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  53. Abbreviations? Alright then... by Penurious+Penguin · · Score: 2

    Taxes Squandered Arduously
    Theater of Sovereign Arrogance
    Tush Squeezing Auxiliary
    Trifling Sleazy Abductions
    Testicle Screening Apparatus
    Trouser Skeptics Association
    Transgressing Social Abodes
    Trimester State Assurance
    Trespassing Submissive Anatomy
    Tenaciously Swabbing Anything
    Traveler's Subversion Agency
    Terminally Sordid Asshats
    Titillating Sensitive Appendages
    That's all for now

    --
    Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
    1. Re:Abbreviations? Alright then... by Quakeulf · · Score: 1

      +5 Informative

    2. Re:Abbreviations? Alright then... by Penurious+Penguin · · Score: 1

      Well, they are Treacherous, Superfluous and Appalling; and Totalitarianism is Socially Abhorrent. But I think what we are really dealing with is a bunch of Thespian Supercilious Antics that are really quite Tyrannically Sequestering our Airports and now Tainting Streets in America too.

      --
      Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
    3. Re:Abbreviations? Alright then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's all for now

      That last one doesn't fit.

    4. Re:Abbreviations? Alright then... by Penurious+Penguin · · Score: 1

      This Shew's Adjourned ?

      --
      Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
  54. Dogs?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've never understood this. What do all of these advanced machines do that a simple metal detector + bomb-sniffing dog can't do? And a dog costs a lot less than a machine.

  55. Re:And probably an overpaid unionized workforce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This post was removed due to Dice content standards violations.

  56. Re:And probably an overpaid unionized workforce by VENONA · · Score: 2

    I don't expect _any_ future president to disband TSA. At least not until the world become a Provably Safe Place (TM), or massive public resistance develops. Any politician skilled enough to be up for the job (or a Senate seat, etc.) is going to see that as accepting a lot of risk. There would certainly be an outcry from those who want the government to protect them from _everything_. If there were another attack afterwards, the politician(s) who were involved in dismantling it would then be toast.

    --
    What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
  57. bullshist by Gr4vyBoy · · Score: 1

    You've gotta be shitting me. There is not threat to the US, there is more domestic terrorism among Americans than there is outside influence. This is a waste of money. That's what it's for, better wasting money here than giving it to the poor/homeless/ or helping more students go to college.

  58. Re:Attention Obama Drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2000-2008 happened, we voted for Hope and Change... newsflash it's 2012.

    What changed? Gitmo? Wars? TSA? Voted to get rid of a warmonger, only to get a guy who maintains a "kill list".

    I'm feeling the Office of the President is like an IT Job... Ya know, where bad engineers/developers blame all the outages, issues and bugs on the guy that just left, never taking any responsibilty, or making anything better.

  59. Re:Attention Obama Drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My plan?

    I plan to vote for the candidate that most reflects my personal beliefs. I do not care if it is "throwing my vote away" If we all threw our votes away in this manner, then we might actually have a real representative democracy.

    You are part of the problem, you are voting to keep someone out of office. That is a failing game plan, especially considering how bad Romney has already proven himself to be. You need to vote for the person who aligns with your beliefs the closest. I am tired of this settling shit.

  60. Re:And probably an overpaid unionized workforce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, it's been years since Bush has been in office

    Dude, have you ever seen Bush and Obushma in the same room at the same time? No? Well point made.

  61. Re:And probably an overpaid unionized workforce by frosty_tsm · · Score: 1

    to run them. Please, God, let Romney win.

    Do you think Romney would do anything differently?

    Hint: if he would, he would have mentioned it by now.

  62. Re:And probably an overpaid unionized workforce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was originally going to reply with a "sure it was", but when I opened this post in its own tab, the formatting changed.

    If I open the story and scroll down, the post appears bold.

    But if I open just this post... it isn't bold.

    Haven't seen anything like that before...

  63. Re:And probably an overpaid unionized workforce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prove that the TSA is a waste of time and money and isn't doing anything, get the public against it, and then it won't matter whether Obama or Romney is President; they'll have to follow the will of the people

    You still think the government does the will of the people. How cute. Don't worry, you'll grow out of it...

  64. Why EFF? by Jaytan · · Score: 1

    Why does this story have an EFF logo? There are no references anywhere to the EFF anywhere outside of the logo & tag.

  65. Re:And probably an overpaid unionized workforce by Mitreya · · Score: 1

    You really think Romney'd change anything?

    Sure he will. I am certain that an entirely different group of contractors would get to develop "3rd generation" machines if Romney replaced Obama.

  66. Question.... by grenadeh · · Score: 1

    Are these assholes even government employees? If not, WHY ARE THEY GETTING TAXPAYER MONEY?

    1. Re:Question.... by grenadeh · · Score: 1

      Ah, so they are DHS members.

  67. Weapons? by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Nope, it's actually easier than that. Simply ban all items that can be used as weapons.

    Are you including hands, feet and body odor?

  68. It's a good, but expensive, system. by Animats · · Score: 1

    The AS&E Z-backscatter systems are quite good. There's some X-ray exposure, and they're very expensive, but they're effective. They image by atomic number, and can distinguish elements. It's not just density any more, like transmission X-rays. This technology is much more effective (and intrusive) than microwave-based systems.

    The machines need a huge number of X-ray detectors, are physically large, very expensive, and aren't that fast. The latest generation of machines are about 2/3 the size of the previous ones (which were so big that they wouldn't fit through standard doors) and are faster. But they're still big.

    If the TSA is going to throw money at something, this is at least something that works.

    The San Ysidro border US border checkpoint has several lanes of the big version for cars. This thing is the size of a drive-through carwash. It's too slow to use for primary inspection, though; only some vehicles are run through it. The biggest weakness of the technology is that it is slow.

  69. Where are BJF and TJ when we need them. by grenadeh · · Score: 1

    I wish I had a time machine because I would go back in time, show Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin a video of the BS that goes on in our time, and it would be more than enough for them to travel to the future with me. Then I'd like to see what they do when a TSA agent tries to violate them.

  70. Touch Sensitive Appendage(s) by techsimian · · Score: 1

    RAWR!

  71. No sociopaths needed by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    You don't need to be a sociopath to not open the door, even if there are 200 people being killed. It's a simple calculation today. The assumption now is that they want to be able to control the plane in order to turn it into an improvised guided missile. The 200 people are dead anyways if that happens, and the potential casualties on the ground are in the thousands. This is despite the odds being rather against 5 terrorists armed only with knives being able to kill 200. It would be difficult even with guns. Remember, even today a good percentage of commercial airplane pilots come from a military background, and we're talking about people who, during 9/11, were prepared to ram the plane with their unarmed fighter to prevent it from going into another occupied building.

    Attitudes changed on 9/11. It's been our biggest defense against a repeat. Today, passangers have gotten so enthusiastic about defending the plane that they've killed people who tried to get through the flight door.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  72. Indecent exposure by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    I have to disagree. You have to remember that we're a morass of federal laws, 50 different sets of state law, who knows how many city/county laws, etc... That's before you consider that the police can arrest you for pretty much whatever they want, mistakes in the specifics of law themselves. There's a difference between being arrested for something, being charged for it, much less being convicted of it.

    That being said, I figure that there has to be more to the story about the indecent exposure charge. Perhaps there were allegations/suspicion that the guy deliberately dropped his pants?

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  73. They pretend there are no current problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what makes anyone think that these ones will be an improvement.

  74. Re:You forgot to add the Congressional Medal of Ho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It should be "If you aren't smart enough to get into college, go join the Army. If they won't take you, the TSA will, cause you are already qualified."

  75. Re:And probably an overpaid unionized workforce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a bug, not a feature.

  76. More TSA Waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now what sort of health hazard is TSA planning for travelers? They haven't even finished deploying the new scanners and now they want to replace them.

    TSA is also replacing all of the 244 x-ray scanners in the US with millimeter wave scanners due to the cancer risk and violations of child pornography laws before the lawsuits begin. The scanners at Logan are being removed this month and the rest will be gone within a year.

    These two things alone will cost over $300 million without adding any real security benefit.

    In fact TSA has found less than 10 items using the scanners in the last three years. TSA needs to be replaced and the cost of airport security returned to the airlines. Maybe they will insist on less waste in this ridiculous charade.

  77. Re:You forgot to add the Congressional Medal of Ho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Prior experience"?

    Last time I checked the TSA were putting adverts on pizza boxes.

    If you are a social outcast, are 50 to 100 pounds overweight, have fingers that feel like little icicles or have documented proof of a sub-standard IQ, then you too can have a successful career in the TSA!

    Just imagine all of the looks of envy you'll receive while cruising around in your emergency flashing light bar equipped golf cart as you protect this great nation of ours from the evil encroachments of Vile Terrorists!

    Swell with pride as you are secure in the knowledge that every grandmother molested and every child frightened into life-long panic attacks are a small price to pay for Eternal Vigilance!

    Join Us Today!

  78. Re:And probably an overpaid unionized workforce by xenobyte · · Score: 1

    The TSA is now an institution that will not be eradicated, without the complete dissolution of the USA.

    Unless we get a true Tea Party president that wants to slash the public sector massively. Look at TSA's massive budget and ask: Just how many terrorists has it actually caught? - and compare the response to previous efforts in airport security. When the enormous waste of money on nothing comes to light, the TSA will be eradicated faster than if it was nuked from orbit...

    It is kind of scary that the TSA was formed in response to 9/11, and yet NONE of the current security measures would have caught the 9/11 hijackers. One of my friends actually brought a huge steak knife with him through the security in THREE international airports and it wasn't discovered. It came from a restaurant in his initial airport (with stamped logo) so if it was found he could always claim that he didn't know it was there (in a bag of duty free stuff, into which it could easily have fallen).

    --
    "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
  79. George Soros and TSA by billd10 · · Score: 0

    George Soros is a big investor in this company and has many liberal friends in our government. So, of course we're going to invest billions of dollars to make George even wealthier and provide the public with the illusion of security.

  80. Disband the TSA. by Criton · · Score: 1

    Lets just disband the TSA already and let travelers choose the level of security the wish to have. Seriously you're more likely to die slipping in the shower,on the drive up there,by insect stings or bites, or even falling out of bed then by international terror.