Helena Airport Manager Blocks TSA From Taking Full-Body Scanner

OverTheGeicoE writes "TSA recently announced that it would remove all of Rapiscan's X-ray body scanners from airports by June. As part of this effort, it is trying to move a millimeter-wave body scanner from the Helena, Montana airport to replace an X-ray unit at a busier airport. Strangely enough, they have encountered resistance from the Helena's Airport Manager, Ron Mercer. Last Thursday, workers came to remove the machine, but were prevented from doing so by airport officials. Why? Perhaps Mercer agrees with Cindi Martin, airport director at Montana's Glacier Park International Airport airport, who called the scheduled removal of her airport's scanner 'a great disservice to the flying public' in part because it 'removed the need for the enhanced pat-down.'"

Comments

Think you may want to look at his logs

[crazyjj]

I'm thinking Ron may have been doing most unprofessional things at the scanner monitor. Perhaps ween him off the free peep show slowly.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[ron_ivi]

Perhaps the airports should just sell the videos from those machines to subsidize air travel.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Anonymous Coward]

I think its not quite impossible that he doesn't actually do something wrong.

If they keep telling you that for safety, you should have such a scanner at your airport, and then want to take it away from you, I don't think you would be happy.

It likely didn't prove itself in either direction, aka, it didn't show to stop terrorism a lot (since really, there isn't much terrorism), but nor did it show much really negative side effects, so if it was said to be a good thing, why suddenly stop believing in it. Certainly after you likely approved to good thing yourself, wouldn't want to acknowledge its a bad thing now, eh.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm thinking Ron may have been doing most unprofessional things at the scanner monitor. Perhaps ween him off the free peep show slowly.

They're removing the "good" machines (that are censored and aren't saveable) to be used in larger cities to replace the "bad" rapiscan machines.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Joce640k]

He says the scanner provides an excuse for them to do "enhanced patdowns".

I don't know what sort of people enjoy giving enhanced patdowns to other people, but know I don't want them in my airports.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[cayenne8]

Actually, when I go to fly, I do make sure to arrive in plenty of time ahead of flight....and when going through TSA if they don't wave me through the metal detector and instead make me go to the scanner, I refuse and politely ask for the pat down rather than be exposed to the 'radiation'.

The TSA agents have consistently told me there is no xray or radiation in these, but I smile and ask for the pat down.

It isn't any big deal so far...but I wish more people would do this as a slight form of protest. If enough people were backing up the lines for pat downs, they might have to rethink using the damned things.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[jmrieger]

Think you misread the statement. They liked the machine because having it installed meant that TSA officers *didn't* have to do the enhanced pat-downs.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Anonymous Coward]

The presence of scanners meant that the pat-downs were optional. Removing the scanners does a disservice because now the pat-downs would have to be mandatory if they expect to provide the same level of screening.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Anonymous Coward]

What you should be doing is walking right through without getting scanned or patted down. Ignore the TSA completely.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like airports need to have large, public displays of the people in the rape-scan viewing booth.

(Who watches the watchers?)

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment doesn't make mucht sense. They would rethink using the machines because nobody is using them? Removing them only makes the pad down line longer.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[AliasMarlowe]

Or perhaps some persons were enjoying giving the "enhanced pat-downs" even more than watching the nudie videos.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Joce640k]

It isn't any big deal so far...but I wish more people would do this as a slight form of protest. If enough people were backing up the lines for pat downs, they might have to rethink using the damned things.

It's a government. They'll just spend more money.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Joce640k]

They're removing the "good" machines (that are censored and aren't saveable) to be used in larger cities to replace the "bad" rapiscan machines.

Quite the opposite. They're removing them because the people who promised they would (eventually) be censored have given up and said it's too difficult to do.

http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20130208/TRAVEL02/302080003/TSA-trying-sell-off-screening-machines

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[wgoodman]

I do the same thing. Last time I flew through Glacier International was in early January. They still had the scanner, but I opted for the pat down. I'd rather make them have to touch more balls so they prefer the old method as opposed to just security theater and punishment for opting out.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[X0563511]

I do the same. I (truthfully) tell them I work with radio a lot, and try to minimize my non-occupational exposure.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[FuzzNugget]

Yeah, no. What we'll get then is: "mandatory scans, no patdowns".

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Anonymous Coward]

Removing them only makes the pad down line longer.

Which screws the works for the airlines. If nobody can make their flight, there's going to be a lot of irate customers. Most of the customers are voters. It makes things much worse on a return flight when their baggage leaves without them.

Another alternative is to bring some stickers and go through the machine a few times to make sure the dose is within limits. If it isn't, sue the manufacturer. Hand one or two of them to the guys running the scanner. They're the ones at the most risk and the most likely to get it shut down if it's provably unsafe.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[jittles]

Your comment doesn't make mucht sense. They would rethink using the machines because nobody is using them? Removing them only makes the pad down line longer.

Incorrect for several reasons. They only do random pat downs when there is no body scanner. They only require the enhanced pat down when someone opts out of doing the body scanner. I've also personally seen them open the metal detectors and let 30-40 people through the metal detector instead of the scanner after I opted out of the scanner and the staff did not know what to do with me. They had me stand in the way of the scanner, which caused such a backup that everyone behind me didn't have to bother with the scanner or the pat down.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Virtucon]

I do the same thing but I make sure I'm nice and sweaty before doing so. I also push back when waiting that they have me stand over by the Bag XRay Machines. NFW am I standing next to those Radiation Hazards. Flying is bad enough exposure and frankly I still haven't seen an independent study on the safety of these machines by the people screened or by the people using them. http://www.infowars.com/cancer-surges-in-body-scanner-operators-tsa-launches-cover-up/ The privacy matters are also there as well, so look, if the alternative to the scanner finding "something" is to do a pat down, then just go ahead and do it.

It's time to abolish the TSA, they're useless and could be replaced by a few well trained police dogs trained to sniff out explosives and contraband.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Virtucon]

It's not just Ron...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/woman-body-scanned-times-tsa-dallas-airport-cute-figure-article-1.1022803

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[houghi]

The scanners are not the problem. The patdowns are not the problem. The fact that these things are there is the problem.
Bullshit things like this airport logic are the problem.
The fact that almost nobody complains is the problem.
Another nice read from scientificamerican.com

The security theater and everything that comes with it is the real problem.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[peragrin]

I just stopped flying.

Why kill your self or debase your self on technology and procedures that are so randomly enforced, that it doesn't do any good anyways.

They could replace the scanners with a motion detector and a timer, you walk in 5 seconds later it lights up green and you walk through. Every 40 people have it light up red for "enhanced pat downs"

You could build install it for $5,000 and provide just as much security.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Drakonblayde]

Wrong scanner. This is the milimeter wave scanner that they're not wanting to be removed. The porn scanners are the ones being permanently removed, and they're pulling the milimeter wave scanners out of the smaller airports to replace the porn scanners they're yanking from the bigger airports.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[yurtinus]

How *dare* they try to take away my enhanced pat downs! They are the highlight of my trip whenever I fly :(

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[dcollins]

"He says the scanner provides an excuse for them to do 'enhanced patdowns'."

I'm not going to blast you like some other commenters did, because it's the summary that's bungled, and does in fact literally say what you thought here. But nonetheless, here's what the manager actually said in TFA: "People had become comfortable with the scanner. It certainly did speed the process and removed the need for the enhanced pat-down.”

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that there is NO need for enhanced pat-down. It does NOTHING to improve security.
Neither does the nude scanner as it misses 99.9% of dangerous items when they are aligned with body's sides.

The only thing that anyone gets out of enhanced pat-downs is the Agents themselves getting their rocks off molesting children and raping women.

Every single TSA agent that has performed an enhanced pat-down or spent time monitoring the nude scanners should be in prison on the registered sex offenders list for the rest of their lives.

TSA - the only private (not government) agency where being a child molesting, child porn generating, rapist is considered not only a good thing, but a job requirement. If I was an FBI agent, I'd more than make my quota arresting these fucktards every day for molesting children and viewing child-porn.
I'd probably beg them to resist arrest to boot.
And when their supervisors try to intervene, I'd arrest them too for interfering with a REAL federal agent doing his job.

There's an idea - rather than the FBI spending time tracking down foreign hackers, let's have them nail child rapists by arresting every single TSA employee.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Firehed]

Please re-read the summary. It says that having the scanner removes the need for enhanced pat-downs. i.e. if they take it away, it will increase the number of pat-downs required.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Anonymous Coward]

My nephew works for a company that installs these scanners, and he opts out and takes the pat down. So now i do, too.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[baker_tony]

I do the same when I go to America for work, not that I've been to America recently, avoid the place like the plague thanks to your TSA and revised visa bullshit (how many terrorists from New Zealand have attacked America again?!).
When I go to the UK I always go via Asia now as well, far more pleasant experience than via America and it's airports.
Anyway, rant over

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[DRJlaw]

He says the scanner provides an excuse for them to do "enhanced patdowns".

I don't know what sort of people enjoy giving enhanced patdowns to other people, but know I don't want them in my airports.

That is exactly the impression that I got from the summary, but TFA is not nearly so Orwellian. The summary uses "it," but doesn't accurately convey that "it" refers to the scanner, not the removal of the scanner. The article says:

"People had become comfortable with the scanner. It certainly did speed the process and removed the need for the enhanced pat-down."

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[fbumg]

They must print the money first, then spend...

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[icebike]

Yeah, that will work!

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[rsborg]

The scanners are not the problem. The patdowns are not the problem. The fact that these things are there is the problem.
Bullshit things like this airport logic are the problem.
The fact that almost nobody complains is the problem.
Another nice read from scientificamerican.com

The security theater and everything that comes with it is the real problem.

Security theatre isn't the problem, it's a symptom of the military-industrial-complex (now branching out into pervasive monitoring and other totalitarian activities). The problem is the idea that we're constantly at war (with other countries, illegal aliens, drugs, sexuality). I'm not a pure libertarian, but this is the most fundamental agreement I have with libertarians: that sacrificing freedom for the appearance of security is a sure sign you're going to lose all your freedoms... one by one.

TSA and DHS are the latest symptoms of decades-long degradation of war-oriented policy.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Bearhouse]

This shit gets modded up? RTFA people, it quotes the guy as saying the exact opposite.

Having said that, I got an "enhanced patdown" recently at Moscow Airport. For the first time in my life, (I am male,and have been travelling by air regularly for 20 years), I enjoyed airport security.

Maybe because patdown was administered by a very alluring blonde lady.

Ditch the scanners and bring on the hot chicks; watch all the jaundiced business travellers PAY to go through "enhanced" security :)

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Anonymous Coward]

I still maintain that if the TSA were to hire from the stripper/Hooters girl applicant pool, there would be plenty of passengers not only willing to undergo the enhanced patdown, but willing to pay extra for it.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you even fucking read? The article states that the scanner REMOVES the need for the enhanced patdowns. Loss of scanner = more patdowns. If he really wanted to feel balls more often, he'd be helping them move the machine out, not stand in their way.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing that anyone gets out of enhanced pat-downs is the Agents themselves getting their rocks off molesting children and raping women.

As a woman, I wear the tightest-fitting jeans, not the skinny jeans but tight-fitting fashion jeans 1980s-style, when I fly just for the enhanced pat-down pleasure of the wonderfully thoughtful TSA gropers. And I ensure a liberal powdering of my body between waist and crotch for a memorable experience.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[suutar]

actually, reading the article, having the scanner means they don't have to do patdowns on every single flyer.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[suutar]

I misspoke. "Every single" was never mentioned. But the article does express that they'd rather have the scanner than have to do more patdowns.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[amorsen]

He says exactly the opposite, TFS is just wrong as usual.

It is the SCANNER which supposedly removes the need for enhanced pat-downs, so supposedly everyone would have to go through those without the scanner. Good luck with that.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[fustakrakich]

If enough people were backing up the lines for pat downs, they might have to rethink using the damned things.

If enough people voted for a different class of politicians, we wouldn't have to put up with the damned things.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Anonymous Coward]

For what it's worth, I do pretty much the same thing. I'm not trying to slow down the line (and I suggest you not either, since that actually qualifies as illegal now, if the TSA signage is to be believed). Rather, I just want to make it clear that this is a stupid requirement for air travel.

Once in Chicago I was waved through the metal detectors when I got to the end and said, "oh, no. I'm not going through that." Unfortunately, my home airport is Austin-Bergstrom International, which seems to be both terribly consistent and consistently terrible. First, they remind me that this is not an X-Ray scanner. (Don't care). Next, they yell opt-out down the chain five times as if this is completely unheard of, and try to figure out where to tell me to stand. I stand there for about 15 minutes before someone comes along to pull me back.

(This is when you usually see the other mostly-overlooked points of incompetence: the woman in the wheelchair who is asked if she can get up and walk "just 10 feet" through the scanner. The 12 year old girl who walks through, is scanned, and this is sent back through the line as the supervisor reminds the agent in front of the gate that "12 and under includes 12; she doesn't go through". Well, not a second time at least. She also didn't have to take off her shoes, but no one mentioned that. By the time they determine that the handicapped vet's prosthetic arm is not a grievous threat to air safety -- which only took about 5 minutes -- they managed to pull me back past the scanners.)

At this point I usually wait another 15 minutes. My wife has a lot lower tolerance for bullshit than I do. She used to opt out, but got sick of it. (Too bad. A simultaneous male/female opt out may as well be shutting down the airport. They have nowhere for two people to stand, and not personnel to do the job. For some reason, that is never their fault.) Anyway, by this time she's gone through the scanner, gotten her carry-on, and started to guard my carry-on that's just sitting in the bin where anybody can take it. The white woman milling about the secured area with no apparent reason to be there, rifling through apparently other people's bin doesn't raise an eyebrow. I just stick to my cattle chute -- the two-foot wide pair of rails with a gate, which is oddly only deep enough for one person at a time -- and watch the clock tick by.

After half an hour or so total, a blue shirt comes over to finally collect my things. I then get to decide whether I want to let the agent get half-way through the enhanced pat-down before I remind him I'm entitled to a private room, or if I get to remind him before he starts so he can sigh and say, "I was getting to that if you'd give me a minute." Sure you were, pal. Five more minutes pass while they try to find a second agent with time to kill to act as witness. Of course, the pat-own itself takes all of two minutes. They don't want to be doing it anymore than I want to suffer through it. That makes me feels a little better about it. Not confident in the process mind you, just glad that a small part of my annoyance is reflected and magnified. I'm also still waiting for the first time this makes me so late that I miss a flight to see how it goes over.

The sad part is I could probably do the trusted flier program -- Uncle Sam has my prints already -- if I traveled enough to justify the expense. The really sad part is that there is almost no chance of anyone using planes in an attack again, not because TSA is competent, but because it's been done. I'd worry more about someone poisoning Tylenol again than I would about them hijacking a jetliner.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Anonymous Coward]

The wanking about the scanners just shows that figure drawing with nude models, needs to be mandatory in all high schools.

So get over it.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[girlintraining]

but nor did it show much really negative side effects,

Cancer, miscarriages, naked pictures, violation of federal and international laws regarding child pornography, hiring of actual pedophiles, rapists, and murderers to run the machines...

Yeah. No really negative side effects here. Move along, Citizen.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[hedwards]

Which is great if you don't mind having a stranger physically touching you without cause. Getting on an airplane isn't probable cause to conduct such an invasive search. The more people that put up with that crap, the longer it's going to take.

I've flown on planes in other countries and the Koreans, Chinese and Canadians don't feel the need to engage in such obvious sexual abuse of travelers. But, they still manage to get things confiscated as need be.

When people are capable of bringing 12" foam cutting blades through security, I think that requires a certain amount of reality check as doing an enhanced patdown or scan doesn't make any sense if items that larger are making it through just fine.

The reality here is that there were no security problems prior to 9/11, what we had was an intelligence failure. Beefing up security in chance somebody tries again is pointless, seeing as these machines have just moved the risk point outside of the security area.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[hedwards]

Except that it's only true if the goal is security theater. Those devices had well publicized problems where they would miss items placed in its blind spots. Meaning that, you got very little additional security, if any, and people got to be humiliated anyways.

Keep in mind that the Israelis don't use the technology and neither do the Brits as far as I know. The only reason for the machines at all is that the company that makes them is well connected.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[znrt]

why suddenly stop believing in it

you know another way?

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Anonymous Coward]

That's how Mexico does customs. Except its random (or so it seems), and they make you press a little button to light up a light. Red light? Bags searched. The end. Requires 1 employee to monitor, and probably cost less than $500, or whatever that is on pesos.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[SteveO_2010]

Or if the politicians we currently have would just use some common sense and start doing the work they're supposed to be doing in the first place in the interest of the country instead of their party instead of arguing over every little stupid thing they don't agree on. I'm of the opinion that we need to vote everyone out and put in normal people from business to run everything...because, you know, those business people are generally pretty successful in running large organizations if they come from corporate backgrounds.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[NuttyBee]

I do the same... I love it when they tell me how safe they are.. I am sure they all have PhD's in Physics and can tell me how ionizing and non-ionizing radiation are different and how various parts of the body absorb radiation differently. They don't care if you are delayed, they just set you aside and ask the next victim to step up.

One day I was at the airport and a RapidScan technician was leaving for the day. He was wearing a radiation dosimeter, because clearly the company is concerned enough to monitor their employees exposure.

I use to fly 150k domestically. I no longer do. I'm not sure the scanners did much for aircraft security as lets face it, Abdulmutallah, Reid, and that crazy Jet Blue pilot all managed to get through security and were stopped by -- passengers, not overgrown xray machines.

I don't believe terrorists are going to be stopped by $12/hr screeners with video oogling equipment. The terrorists are far smarter and more dedicated to their cause. Nothing the US government will ever do will change that.

Besides, you wouldn't believe the things people shove up their ass..

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[chrismcb]

The OP was right. They are removing machines from bigger airports. So they are taking THESE machines from the smaller airports and moving them to the larger airports.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[ericloewe]

While I'd rather not go through a backscatter x-ray scanner, it's far too early for any noticeable increase in cancer rates due to those scanners. Even if it weren't, I really doubt we could call it a "surge". Add to that the fact that plenty of scanners are mm-Wave (and thus use no ionising radiation), and there's no way in hell we can prove with statistics at this time that backscatter scanners really are causing cancer, unless those things put out a lot more radiation than they should.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Dracophile]

Why kill your self or debase your self on technology and procedures that are so randomly enforced, that it doesn't do any good anyways.

Because it's a fucking long drive from Sydney to Singapore or LA where my friends live?

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[FunPika]

Does TSA even wave people through metal detectors any more? Last month I went on a trip and both ways (one of these was at a small regional airport probably like the one in this article, the other was a large international airport) the TSA was sending everyone through the full body scanner (and in my case I somehow got pulled over both times to have my hands swabbed). Just wondering if the TSA is trying to make the scanners the new "primary" method of screening as opposed to the metal detectors.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[tehcyder]

I don't know what sort of people enjoy giving enhanced patdowns to other people

This may sound crazy, but maybe they're just people wanting to do the best job they can to provide security at the airport?

But, I know, this is slashdot, obviously they're all frustrated rapists.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[tehcyder]

What you should be doing is walking right through without getting scanned or patted down. Ignore the TSA completely.

Genius! Why not just have a big "please give me a full cavity search" tattoo on your forehead too to save them the bother of asking?

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[tehcyder]

Security theatre isn't the problem, it's a symptom of the military-industrial-complex (now branching out into pervasive monitoring and other totalitarian activities). The problem is the idea that we're constantly at war (with other countries, illegal aliens, drugs, sexuality). I'm not a pure libertarian, but this is the most fundamental agreement I have with libertarians: that sacrificing freedom for the appearance of security is a sure sign you're going to lose all your freedoms... one by one.

Yes, but the fundamental error that libertarians make is to equate the military-industrial complex with the government, and say that if you neuter the latter you do the same to the former, and somehow end up with a near-perfect collection of small, competing businesses. Whereas in fact, you would simply hand the large corporations complete, unaccountable power.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Anonymous Coward]

Last weekend the hot bouncer at the club just waved me through instead of patting me down properly. I gave him a disappointed look but his steely jaw stayed steely.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[RaceProUK]

What you should be doing is walking right through without getting scanned or patted down. Ignore the TSA completely.

#83 in the book '101 Ways To Commit Suicide Creatively'.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[AmiMoJo]

Actually the reason they don't want large bottles on board is that if they leak it creates a huge mess in the overhead cabin lockers and soaks the person sitting underneath. If a 100ml bottle leaks the damage is limited.

I'm not sure where the myth about it being for security started.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Virtucon]

This letter says it all and to date the Administration, specifically the TSA has not addressed the concerns raised. The TSA unilaterally has conducted a large science experiment on the traveling public without the smallest amount of scientific scrutiny on the safety of the procedure. This again flies in the face of a "transparent administration" as promised by Obama.

My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

These systems were rushed into use without any concern for safety of the operators and the people being scanned. Obviously the operators who are around these systems day in and day out are at the greatest risk but also the passengers, some like me who fly very frequently. I don't like going through the humiliation of the pat down but that's far better than getting another case of skin cancer.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[mooingyak]

He says the scanner provides an excuse for them to do "enhanced patdowns".

I don't know what sort of people enjoy giving enhanced patdowns to other people, but know I don't want them in my airports.

Actually, the summary is poorly worded. He says the opposite in the article:

“People had become comfortable with the scanner. It certainly did speed the process and removed the need for the enhanced pat-down.”

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[tibit]

Yeah, because DHS gives a fuck about mess in the airline property (airplanes), ha ha.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah okay, but for the 99% of people who don't have a reason to fly intercontinentally (and cannot use Skype or Videoconferencing e.g. for business meetings), why do it?

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Tokolosh]

I have the same policy, so at least there are two of us.

If someone mentions that I am slowing down the line by opting out, I point out that it is not me holding people up, it is the TSA.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Tokolosh]

I have observed this, too.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Anonymous Coward]

The magnetic scanners do exactly this. They flag a small number of people regardless of metal detection to ensure a statistically sound sample size for detection.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not what he said. He said he doesn't want to lose the scanner because the scanner eliminated the need for enhanced patdowns. That's why the removal is a "disservice to the public." He's not in favor of the patdowns, because the customers aren't.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Anonymous Coward]

The only practical way to travel cross country (in USA) is to get jammed into an aluminum tube with fins and get blasted through the air.

Because.

Car = Takes too freaking long...
Bus = Takes too freaking long...and have to sit near an asshole who blasts his headphones for 10+ hours. and spouts out foul language.
Train = If route exists.. Takes too freaking long...

But the four scenarios where flight doesn't make sense are.
1. your unemployed or retired so time is plentiful.
2. you don't ever go anywhere and like to stay at home.
3. Your work pays you millage and you drive a Prius or other fuel efficient vehicle (I've known people who have made a good profit from this).
4. You get lots of vacation time.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[operagost]

The "myth" started when they only started restricting the size of liquid containers after someone tried to sneak liquid explosives on board.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[operagost]

Sounds like Barney Stinson's latest scheme...

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[AmiMoJo]

As the meme points out you can still sneak liquid explosives on-board though. Plus we now have detectors that can spot these liquids. The problem with liquid explosives is that they are hard to detonate, so they made sure that metal detectors and x-ray equipment could detect the detonators.

In fact the ban was lifted a while back in the UK, but the airports kept enforcing it at the airlines' request.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[dgatwood]

Except during the peak of the holiday rush, they have been the primary screening method at BNA and SJC for at least the last three or four years, as far as I can tell.

It was precisely that change from secondary to primary screening that caused me to stop flying altogether except when I absolutely cannot afford the extra couple of days to travel by train.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[dgatwood]

Not only do the Brits use it in some of their airports, you can't even opt out in Britain. That's a big reason why travel agencies who cater to large groups are avoiding British Airways in favor of flights that change planes either in the U.S. or Europe instead of Britain.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Xolotl]

Why kill your self or debase your self on technology and procedures that are so randomly enforced, that it doesn't do any good anyways.

Because it's a fucking long drive from Sydney to Singapore or LA where my friends live?

Also, wet.

Re:Think you may want to look at his logs

[Raenex]

The really sad part is that there is almost no chance of anyone using planes in an attack again, not because TSA is competent, but because it's been done. I'd worry more about someone poisoning Tylenol again than I would about them hijacking a jetliner.

Bombs are the main threat now. The shoe bomber and the underwear bomber are the two prime examples. And while it's easy to cry "security theater!", I think the underwear bomber would at least have been caught by a scanner. That said, I'm not going to accept a virtual strip search or an "enhanced" pat down to fly, so I just don't.

Ron Mercer == Chester the Molester

[bobthesungeek76036]

... 'removed the need for the enhanced pat-down.'

Sounds like <i>someone</i> might be pat-down-happy...

Re:Ron Mercer == Chester the Molester

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like <i>someone</i> might be pat-down-happy...

I always opt out of scanning and go for the pat-down. The employees always seem very uncomfortable while doing it.

Wonder if it has anything to do with my Steve Jobsian approach to personal hygene?

Re:Ron Mercer == Chester the Molester

[dkleinsc]

The complaint that it 'removed the need for the enhanced pat-down' was from Cindi Martin, not Ron Mercer. So it's quite possible that you've pinned the wrong motive on him.

Re:Ron Mercer == Chester the Molester

[Farmer Pete]

They are complaining that if they get rid of the machines, they WILL have to do the enhanced pat-down. They aren't currently doing the enhanced pat-down. In other words, they want traffic to go through the airport faster, and the scanners speed things up.

Re:Ron Mercer == Chester the Molester

[wgoodman]

When they're putting on the glove, tell them to double bag it because you just got back from ______ and you're pretty sure there isn't even an English word yet for the horrific STD you picked up there.

Re:Ron Mercer == Chester the Molester

[X0563511]

Bullshit, they are doing them. You, as the screened, are allowed to opt-out. I do every time I fly.

So we are at that point now.

[Anonymous Coward]

The scanner "removed the need for the enhanced pat-down".

Anyone remember the times before the scanners? There were no enhanced pat-downs, those came with the security theater of scanners. It was just a metal detector and a pat-down was only when the metal detector beeped.

It seems we're at the point now where we don't question any more whether or not a security measure is useful (haven't seen any proof yet that the pat-down or the scanner are beneficial at all), but the debate is now only about which pointless "security" measure is the preferred method of wasting time and money.

Re:So we are at that point now.

[Joce640k]

(haven't seen any proof yet that the pat-down or the scanner are beneficial at all), but the debate is now only about which pointless "security" measure is the preferred method of wasting time and money.

Clue: Bad stuff can fit up people's asses. It's how people smuggle drugs through airport security, it's how cellphones get into prisons (complete with chargers!), etc.

Anybody who's really determined can get a bomb on a 'plane using this method and nothing the TSA does will prevent it. I know it, you know it, Al Qaeda knows it, even the TSA knows it.

Re:So we are at that point now.

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Dude, if you think that enough (non-nuclear) explosives to bring down a passenger jet will fit up your asshole, then you fail chemistry forever. Same for in your shoes, for that matter.

Re:So we are at that point now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Press an ass full of C5 against a cabin window and I think you'll see that you failed physics.

PS - "Dude"?

Re:So we are at that point now.

[OzPeter]

Anybody who's really determined can get a bomb on a 'plane using this method and nothing the TSA does will prevent it. I know it, you know it, Al Qaeda knows it, even the TSA knows it.

Anyone who is really interested in disrupting air travel won't even try to smuggle a bomb on a plane. All you need to do is set off a bomb (*) in the middle of the security theatre at a major airport (or for fun synchronized at 2 or 3 airports) and that will scare the US public shitless.

* Or you could even do what the IRA did in 1994 when they fired mortars at Heathrow airport.

Re:So we are at that point now.

[flayzernax]

Is this the ultimate form of a goatse.cx?

Re:So we are at that point now.

[X0563511]

That... would be amusing to see.

Also, WTF is C5?

Re:So we are at that point now.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd stack the 2 oversized Li-ion batteries that are _always_ in my carry-on against your ass full of whatever.

They still aren't going to do much more than start a swell fire*, but whatever.

*yeah sure, under the perfect conditions I could blow out a window with them. This assumes that no one notices me building an enclosure around the window to direct the force of the blast.

Re:So we are at that point now.

[Anonymous Coward]

The future of transportation! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_C5

Re:So we are at that point now.

[hawguy]

Dude, if you think that enough (non-nuclear) explosives to bring down a passenger jet will fit up your asshole, then you fail chemistry forever. Same for in your shoes, for that matter.

Even if it can't take down a jet, a big gaping hole in the side of the plane is probably enough to meet the terrorists objectives.

I've seen enough internet porn to know that a cylinder 2" in diameter x 8" long could be hidden away, with training, a much larger cylinder could be hidden away. But even 2"x8" is 25 in^3, or 411 cm^3

At 1.63g/cm^3 density, that's 670g of explosive, or about one and a half pounds.

I think that much high explosive could easily punch a hole through the thin skin of a plane. Or blow a cockpit door off and possible disable the pilots.

Re:So we are at that point now.

[larry bagina]

In 2009, an al-quaida agent attempted (unsuccessfully) to assassinate a Saudi prince with an ass bomb. The shoe bomber and the crotch bomber were very successful -- not at blowing up a plane but at allowing the TSA to implement even dumber and more invasive security measures.

Re:So we are at that point now.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm thinking that's one big asshole: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-5_Galaxy

Re:So we are at that point now.

[MadCow42]

"The time before the scanners" was last week for me. Flying back from Israel, there are no scanners, and no pat downs. But, even though they're one of the most at-risk for terrorist attacks, the have put in place actual security instead of the theater that passes for security here. They profile. They do background checks. They do risk assessment.

I refuse to use the scanners in the USA, partially due to the unproven safety levels (albeit likely much better with the "newer" ones instead of the backscatter xray ones), and partially due to privacy concerns - or at least the privacy implications.

MadCow.

Re:So we are at that point now.

[PraiseBob]

Because no one could ever dream of an attack on an airplane where 4 or 5 people were acting in concert, right?

Re:So we are at that point now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone remember the times before the scanners?

I remember flying out of Bozeman, MT., in 1986 when they didn't even have metal detectors. No X-Ray machines, no metal detectors, no pat downs, nothing. You'd walk out onto the runway and up stairs to get on the plane. Oh, what a different time.

Re:So we are at that point now.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is what makes the whole 3 oz or less thing a total joke.

Re:So we are at that point now.

[The Grim Reefer]

In 2009, an al-quaida agent attempted (unsuccessfully) to assassinate a Saudi prince with an ass bomb. The shoe bomber and the crotch bomber were very successful -- not at blowing up a plane but at allowing the TSA to implement even dumber and more invasive security measures.

I'd say the crotch and shoe bombers were more successful than if they had blown up

Re:So we are at that point now.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sometimes afraid to demonstrate (conceptually, mind you) how ridiculous airport security is by suggesting things that would be easier, cheaper, and more effective. I don't want people to think I'm crazy or sit around thinking about this stuff all the time.

So please keep that in mind when I ask rhetorically, how ridiculously cheap and easy would it be for horrible people to fly a few hobby drones with small HE charges on them right into an airport. Nowadays that can be done for less than al queda spends on building and placing a roadside bomb (something like $1k, I've heard).

They could land them right on planes wings, or planes taking off or landing, fuel trucks, etc. What are we going to do, put phalanx systems all around the perimeters of all our airports? And with no real signature, visually target anything that moves? That's a lot of dead pigeons.

There are things that are done on our behalf that make perfect sense to me. I do want our border security and intelligence services to know who is coming into our country, and from where. I do want them to be watching cash flow from known baddies to people inside the US. I want them to know if someone is smuggling radiological materials in shipping containers. I don't think that the goofy stuff that happens in line at security for our airports is really helping anything, other than act as a very visible attempt at diligence.

Re:So we are at that point now.

[Anonymous Coward]

The TSA could forcibly sodomize every passenger and people would still put up with it if it meant getting from NYC to LA in five hours instead of five days.

Re:So we are at that point now.

[jxander]

You're overthinking it.

Why would you require multiple people working in concert? Sure you're limited to 3oz bottles, but there's no limit on how many 3oz bottles you can bring. One person with 4 or 5 bottles, or hell, 15 bottles ... but a single 4oz bottle, now we've got a problem.

Re:So we are at that point now.

[Virtucon]

Or the SNUKE! in the SNIZZ!

Re:So we are at that point now.

[der_pinchy]

>Anyone remember the times before the scanners?

bah I remember a time when their were no fences around the airport and your parents would park the car on the side of the road and the pilot would wave you to come over so he could show you around the plane while passengers were boarding!

Re:So we are at that point now.

[Anonymous Coward]

But.. but.. profiling would be racist!

Re:So we are at that point now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't a lot of the force of the explosion be absorbed by the bomber's body anyway? I guess he could ... erm... remove the bomb in flight.

Re:So we are at that point now.

[hawguy]

Wouldn't a lot of the force of the explosion be absorbed by the bomber's body anyway? I guess he could ... erm... remove the bomb in flight.

Yeah, I'm assuming he'd take it out in the lavatory for optimal placement against the side of the aircraft. (which could be done in the lavatory if it's along the outside wall).

Re:So we are at that point now.

[NJRoadfan]

El Al Airlines is notable for telling the TSA to shove it and retained their enhanced airport security screenings in the USA. http://www.haaretz.com/news/el-al-wants-to-do-its-own-bag-screening-at-newark-airport-1.187412

Re:So we are at that point now.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a limit. All your bottles must fit into a single quart sized bag.

Re:So we are at that point now.

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a time before that too. Anyone without a ticket could talk up to the gates and wait for their loved ones to come off the plane. I remember staring out the windows watching the plane hook up to the terminal waiting for my Grandma to visit. For departure, we'd all wait together at the gate and say goodbye when boarding started. Flying was family friendly. You used to be able to take weapons on a plane. People had more respect for each other (as far as I can remember as a little kid).

Re:So we are at that point now.

[xenobyte]

Anybody who's really determined can get a bomb on a 'plane using this method and nothing the TSA does will prevent it. I know it, you know it, Al Qaeda knows it, even the TSA knows it.

A much bigger threat than passengers are airport employees. It was quite the scandal when it turned out that three security employees at Londons Heathrow Airport were illegal aliens with fake documents. Two of these were from Afghanistan by the way, They had full clearance and could roam the entire airport and board planes if they liked. Just think of all the harm they could have done.

Oh, and airport infrastructure as well. A random check at an airport whose name I don't remember right now prompted by an anonymous tip revealed that many so-called alarmed doors weren't. Turns out bad wiring or wear and tear caused numerous false alarms, which made the officials turn off the alarm system. Then, when the employees found out the alarms didn't work, they blocked the doors open for convenience in their daily jobs, leaving open unmonitored doors for anyone to use.

Last but not least - there was a jewellery heist at a Dutch airport the other day. The thieves simply rammed and broke through the airport fence, drove up to a plane that just finished taxiing, opened the cargo hold, grabbed some containers (which contained a significant quantity of diamonds) and drove back out and away. Terrorists could easily do the same except they could be bringing explosives or worse aboard a plane which they then proceed to fly away in and later crash it somewhere important.

Re:So we are at that point now.

[thegarbz]

Anyone who is really interested in disrupting air travel won't even try to smuggle a bomb on a plane. All you need to do is set off a bomb (*) in the middle of the security theatre at a major airport (or for fun synchronized at 2 or 3 airports) and that will scare the US public shitless.

Bah. Been there, done that.

Re:So we are at that point now.

[chrismcb]

Yes I remember the security theatre before the current security theatre. Back then, they would randomly select passengers and do a full patdown (minus the stick our hands in your pants part)

Re:So we are at that point now.

[chrismcb]

If your goal was to disrupt air travel, there are plenty of ways to do it that don't include weapons or bombs. Of course that won't be terrorizing.

Re:So we are at that point now.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have three very ugly words for you:
fuel air explosive

Re:So we are at that point now.

[Anonymous Coward]

It has less to do with chemistry, more to do with engineering and physics. The explosive energy in a small apple-sized modern explosive is plenty sufficient. You only need to focus it properly. The non-explosive parts can go into your carryon, they are just inert pieces that aren't dangerous on their own. I'd have thought that's simple stuff anyone who cares would know.

C'mon...that's a hanging curve ball.

[rmdingler]

I am unqualified to suggest how the Montana version of the enhanced pat-down might be likely to go, but the Backpage girls want to charge a bit extra...

Re:C'mon...that's a hanging curve ball.

[wgoodman]

The last one I had at Glacier International was very brief. He was clearly more uncomfortable about it than I was.

Re:C'mon...that's a hanging curve ball.

[jxander]

Did you moan a bit? I've found that giving a few subtle hints that I'm enjoying the enhanced pat down ends the whole thing very very quickly.

more money wasted

[jest3r]

It's certainly a huge waste of taxpayer dollars and makes you wonder why airport fees are so high when these agencies seem to be committing to the wrong technology over and over.

The TSA has to remove the Rapiscan machines because they couldn't patch the software to remove customer-specific imagery? Why use them in the first place?

I wonder how much money was flushed down the drain on those babies ... I wonder how long the new machines will last before they get replaced ... and now small airports are back to full body cavity searches which is why these machines existed in the first place ...

Re:more money wasted

[characterZer0]

Money was not flushed down the drain. Money was directed to campaign contributors, friends, family, and other connected members of the political class by way of contracts for unnecessary equipment.

Re:more money wasted

[spongebue]

The TSA has to remove the Rapiscan machines because they couldn't patch the software to remove customer-specific imagery? Why use them in the first place?

If I remember correctly, congress required imagery to be removed by a certain date. The requirement was put in place after the scanners were originally installed. Rapiscan said they couldn't meet the deadline, so TSA decided to switch to all L3 scanners, which already have the cookie-cutter image.

Re:more money wasted

[dkleinsc]

Actually, in the case of Rapiscan machines, one of the people that were going to profit from the decision was Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of Homeland Security at the time that he was deciding whether to use them. No, nothing corrupt there.

Re:more money wasted

[rahvin112]

I'd like to see solid evidence of this story. I find it highly suspect that these machines were decommissioned the same month a court ordered the TSA to present evidence why they hadn't done the health study he ordered.

I personally believe the TSA DID start the health study required and the initial results scared them so bad they decided to create a scenario that removed the machines. Those machines were taking X-rays of people 10's of feet away from the machines (see some of the demo pictures released). They were NOT in the power limits they specified and they were giving people radiation doses 10's of thousands of times higher than claimed. I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of TSA workers end up with cancer that were operating these machines.

Re:more money wasted

[Darby]

I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of TSA workers end up with cancer that were operating these machines.

At least it's not all bad.

Re:more money wasted

[chrismcb]

The TSA has to remove the Rapiscan machines because they couldn't patch the software to remove customer-specific imagery? Why use them in the first place?

I wonder how much money was flushed down the drain on those babies ...

I think you answered your own question. Just remember that drain (you flushed the money down) goes somewhere...

I'm sorry, what?

[JustAnotherIdiot]

because it 'removed the need for the enhanced pat-down.

Or you could just, you know, let people pass through the metal detectors.
You know, how all airports used to do, and smaller ones STILL do?

Re:I'm sorry, what?

[mythosaz]

That absurd. It's almost like you're saying that anyone wishing to bypass advanced screening equipment can just go to a regional airport and then catch a flight to a large airport and TA-TAH! be behind security.

Re:I'm sorry, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just the small ones. I've seen them using the scanners less than half the time I've flown out of Logan over the past 6 months.

Re:I'm sorry, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to me, that that, in combination with locking the door to the cockpit is way more than enough to stop all big terrorism acts. At some point, it just stops being worth the effort of anti-terrorism if you got to protect every single person. If somebody wants to kill an individual, and we do not have everybody on a thought controlling machine, the person will be able to do it, same if a person wants to kill 2 people. I wonder at what point it becomes viable to stop them from doing it while still having everybody retain a bit of privacy.

The amount of people you can kill and still have it be a terrorist like act and not just a murder heavily depends on the matterials you have available. Without metal, you have a lot of things blocked from you, for example guns and I would assume much bomblike matterial.
Metal can be scanned for with very little privacy invasion. So its a great way to reduce possibility of big terrorist acts.

Basically, anybody know at what how many lives are on stake it becomes more terrorising to have your method of detecting the act before it takes place or the act itself?

Re:I'm sorry, what?

[stew77]

Or you could just, you know, let people pass through the metal detectors.

You know, how all airports used to do, and smaller ones STILL do?

Smaller ones? Heathrow does the simple metal detector routine and they let you keep your shoes on. Not a small airport by my definition.

Yes, Heathrow in London/UK - the paranoid place with omnipresent CCTV that outlawed carrying a swiss army knife in public and where it's illegal to sell razor blades to minors.

Re:I'm sorry, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Outlawed carrying a Swiss Army Knife? WTF?

Re:I'm sorry, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

umm, are you missing a few facts?
I have an artificial hip. It sets off the traditional metal detectors. TSA rules say that once the metal detector has alarmed, the traveler MUST go thru an 'enhanced pat-down'. So I want the alternative to a metal detector, so that I DO NOT have to go thru the 'enhanced pat-down'.

Re:I'm sorry, what?

[Farmer Pete]

I'm shocked that people haven't exploited the lax security standards in other countries more. A few years ago, I was flying with a coworker from Mexico City to Detroit. My coworker walked through the metal detector and was not stopped, questioned, or examined in any way. Why is that significant you ask? Because he has a prosthetic leg. I mean, he walked through the metal detector with several guns worth of metal, and the Mexican security didn't even flinch. I'm not sure if they're always so lax, but I can bear witness to this. I know that you get scanned by the TSA once you land in the USA (if you are going on a connecting flight), but what would have stopped someone from hijacking the flight over the USA and doing something bad?

Re:I'm sorry, what?

[newcastlejon]

They trotted out the old CCTV thing, so I'm guessing they're a Mail reader.

Well, whaddya know?

It was probably just an isolated incident of a bobby getting uppity, since Swiss army knives are explicitly categorised as legal to carry in public if you have good reason. Perhaps aforementioned bobby thought carrying one in a car in case of fruit cravings wasn't justified... personally I don't see the problem with keeping one in the glove box. In any event, this sort of sensationalism is just what we've come to expect from that squalid little rag; I wouldn't be surprised one bit to find a rant about most disabled people being benefit cheats on the next page.

Re:I'm sorry, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is incorrect. You can carry non-locking blades that are less than three inches long. No copper is going to pull you over for carrying a penknife unless you're in a seriously dodgy neighbourhood. You can carry things that violate knife laws if you have reason - a chef going to work may take knives, for instance.

However, I have been ID'd on separate occasions trying to buy cutlery and wood glue before.

Re:I'm sorry, what?

[JustOK]

Banned in favour of the Euroknife. It doesn't work, but it's too expensive for anyone to buy anyways.

Re:I'm sorry, what?

[poetmatt]

uh, what?

heathrow has gone full TSA. Last time I went through, I got stopped from the dreaded contact solution . I was told I could take the same solution and put it into a smaller bottle, but that large bottle? has to go.

Re:I'm sorry, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm shocked that people haven't exploited the lax security standards in other countries more. A few years ago, I was flying with a coworker from Mexico City to Detroit. My coworker walked through the metal detector and was not stopped, questioned, or examined in any way. Why is that significant you ask? Because he has a prosthetic leg. I mean, he walked through the metal detector with several guns worth of metal, and the Mexican security didn't even flinch. I'm not sure if they're always so lax, but I can bear witness to this. I know that you get scanned by the TSA once you land in the USA (if you are going on a connecting flight), but what would have stopped someone from hijacking the flight over the USA and doing something bad?

Fundamentally it's a matter of no one is actually trying to take over/blow up airplanes. That's the main thing that people on the more security side of the argument don't seem to understand.

It doesn't really matter how crappy your security is when no one is trying to penetrate your security.

Re:I'm sorry, what?

[stew77]

Swiss Army Knives come with blades > 3 inches, depending on the model.

Re:I'm sorry, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

where it's illegal to sell razor blades to minors.

Duh; if you're not old enough to drink, you're not old enough to shave.

Re:I'm sorry, what?

[stew77]

...or in with locking blades, again depending on the model. The Swisstool is a widespread knife/tool with a locking blade that would be illegal to carry.

Re:I'm sorry, what?

[jxander]

Bingo. Give the AC a cookie.

The events of 9/11, which ostensibly created the need for these enhanced pat downs and radiation machines, cannot possibly happen again. It took *literally* an hour from the time the first place crashed, for word to spread and the 3rd plane's occupants fought back. In the following days, pilot doors were locked and reinforced, and a new mindset spread amongst airline passengers and pilots. A commercial airliner will not be hijacked again. Everyone knows that, including anyone wishing us harm. They know it and will adjust their targets accordingly.

Meanwhile, I'm stuck getting groped and irradiated while we search for some hypothetical boogeyman who has long since moved on.

Re:I'm sorry, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Back before 9/11, people with synthetic parts didn't need the pat down either.
It's like, they had some other method of dealing with it.
Like a doctor's note and a hand scanner or something.

Re:I'm sorry, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Had to remove my shoes when I last flew out of Heathrow

Re:I'm sorry, what?

[Trogre]

You do have an alternative - show up at airport, check your bags, show your boarding pass, sit on the damn plane.

Did I miss anything?

Re:I'm sorry, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's nothing.

While on holiday in Greece (Heraclion), the airport building was being renovated. Apart from airport security being more interested in scantilly clad female tourists instead of watching the monitor at the X-ray machine, there was a gaping hole in the wall of the airport building connecting the public street with the area beyond security (with quite a lot of people taking the shortcut).

That *was* before 9/11 though, so they might have closed up the hole in the wall by now...

Re:I'm sorry, what?

[Pecisk]

Hijacked - no, but blown up - sure.

Re:I'm sorry, what?

[thegarbz]

That absurd. It's almost like you're saying that anyone wishing to bypass advanced screening equipment can just go to a regional airport and then catch a flight to a large airport and TA-TAH! be behind security.

We have an American ex-pat living here at the moment. We recently took him to a country town in a Boeing 737, so no small propeller plane. His jaw hit the ground when we got out of the plane by method of a set of stairs, walked to the back of the plane to collect our luggage, and then proceeded through the pool fence which separated the carpark and the runway.

The standard answer to why we have the pool fence? So a 5 year old kid can't bypass security and blow up the plane.

Of interest was the fact that once you take this flight domestically to the nearest airport capable of international flights there's rarely any additional screening.

Re:I'm sorry, what?

[Ja'Achan]

You can always get blown up. That's what shoulder-based missile launchers are for.

Re:I'm sorry, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just shoot it down from the ground: safer (for terrorist) and easier (for smart terrorist) and equally as awful/terrorising.

Re:I'm sorry, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

...and air travel will still be far safer than driving in a car.

What's that? No one gives you a security check before you get behind the wheel? ...but you could drive into a crowd!

You have to weigh the advantages of more security against the costs of more security. Air travel is so far on the safe side of things that frankly, if they can't crash the plane into a building, causing it to collapse to the ground and shut down an entire city, then it just doesn't matter what the fuck they do to the plane. Sure, they might kill all the people on the plane, but there are so many fucking ways they could do that that if you're not willing to secure them all then there's really no fucking point in trying.

Isn't this the wrong way around?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was under the impression that, just as how no airplane is legally able to operate in American airspace without complying with FAA regulations, no airport can operate without complying with some combination of Department of Transport, FAA, and/or Transportation Security approval.

The idea being that an airport needs to meet the regulations for safety and security, wouldn't this sort of delay either cause fines or temporarily suspend operations at said airport?

Granted based on the article the manager may or may not be arguing that the scanner's removal and subsequent return to walkthrough metal detectors is less "safe" than using the scanners and wants to maintain quality, but that's difficult to discern.

bread and security circuses

[tverbeek]

People love their security theater. In response to employees watching too much scary stuff on 24-hour cable news about shootings, my employer recently instituted some unnecessary and ineffective "security" measures. They seem to be based on the mushy logic that greater security results in inconvenience, so any new inconvenience probably increases security, and the staff seem to find it comforting to have to jump through extra hoops to get from one part of the office to another.

Re:bread and security circuses

[Anonymous Coward]

... so any new inconvenience probably increases security ...

The very definition of theatre. What happens when there is a fire?

I am reminded of story: A big company rents a warehouse on the 'bad' side of town and converts it into a server farm. Because of the 'criminal element' in the neighbourhood, the design included a man-trap at the front door. Soon fit-out is finished and everyone arrives for work. Suddenly there are one hundred well-dressed people stuck on the mean streets, while they wait for their turn to cycle through the man-trap.

The moment we've all been waiting for

[Anonymous Coward]

Suddenly the scanners are a GOOD thing.

Bad editing

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the article, he doesn't want to remove it because they don't need to do enhanced patdowns while they have the machine. If they remove the machine, they will have to do the pat downs again.

Re:Bad editing

[wgoodman]

Enhanced pat downs came *after* the scanners. Why would going back to just metal detectors require enhanced pat downs?

Re:Bad editing

[stephanruby]

Read the article, he doesn't want to remove it because they don't need to do enhanced patdowns while they have the machine. If they remove the machine, they will have to do the pat downs again.

He must not have gotten the memo.

At the SFO international airport, when too many people object to the scanning, they just do the "enhanced" pat downs for the first couple of people who objected, and then they just let the rest of the folks who object go through the metal detector unmolested (assuming the metal detector doesn't beep). In other words, when they don't have the extra man power to do all the enhanced pat downs, they just remove the little barrier they have in front of the metal detectors, and they let the line go through there instead.

Re:Bad editing

[spasm]

That's funny, I went through SFO on Saturday and did my usual 'can I get an opt out please' and got the enhanced pat down. Along with a repeat from another person when their new ("we think it's oversensitive") explosives-detector machine decided I was carrying bombs. They were, admittedly, more familiar with the process than some I've seen (one guy in Portland literally burst into a sweat when asking me if there were any parts of my body that were injured or otherwise sensitive to pain - think I might have been his 'first' :). But definitely no wave-through.

Re:Bad editing

[Anonymous Coward]

SFO does not use the TSA. They are the largest airport in the country that hires a private company certified by HSA to do the job. An old roommate who worked for the TSA told me that. If you pay attention you will notice they are a bit brighter and sharper than your average TSA agent.

Um ... context is important

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the poster should read the article more carefully.

“People had become comfortable with the scanner. It certainly did speed the process and removed the need for the enhanced pat-down.”

She's stating that the scanners that are being removed had eliminated the enhanced pat-down.

You know what else...

[BenJeremy]

"'removes the need for the enhanced pat-down?"

Telling the TSA to get the fuck out of your airport and re-installing private security with more common sense than your average peanut shell.

The only reason TSA is pervasive is because it is a government handout, replacing the measures they had in place before 9/11. IIRC, there is absolutely nothing preventing airports from replacing TSA with their own security.

Re:You know what else...

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

"'removes the need for the enhanced pat-down?"

Telling the TSA to get the fuck out of your airport and re-installing private security with more common sense than your average peanut shell.

The only reason TSA is pervasive is because it is a government handout, replacing the measures they had in place before 9/11. IIRC, there is absolutely nothing preventing airports from replacing TSA with their own security.

When Texas threatened to make "invasive screening" a misdemeanor the TSA threatened to shut down all traffic out of Texas airports. I have no doubt that if an airport tried to expel the TSA and install private security that they'd do the same to that airport.

Re:You know what else...

[Virtucon]

Wait, while I agree that the TSA is bad, have you seen the jackbooted idiots who man the Statue of Liberty checkpoints? These military dressed morons go way beyond what the TSA do and they are armed to the teeth. This is beyond the airport style screening you have to go throw to get to the islands. It truly is a lesson in freedom when to go see the symbol of freedom in this country treats everyone going to the island like a suspected terrorist.

http://www.yelp.com/biz/statue-of-liberty-national-monument-new-york

Not my review:

To board the ferry you must pass through "airport-style" security screening, although removal of shoes is not required. This privately-contracted security screening is not so bad either. It's when you want to enter the museum, or climb the stairs to the crown, that it gets very very bad. Once on the island, further screening prior to entry is handled by The Nazis of Liberty Island, federal employees highly trained in sulkiness, sullenness, antagonism, and hostility, an embarrassment to any Americans proud of freedom or of their national heritage, and a bizarre insult to all visitors, who (as I noted) have ALREADY PASSED SECURITY just to get there.

Re:You know what else...

[Anonymous Coward]

... that they'd do the same to that airport.

Safety in numbers. If three, maybe four adjacent states banded together, the DHS would lose the fight. Shutting down so many airports means a loss of income for the airlines in the long term. In the short term, the load placed on other airports would cause the air transit system to collapse, or rail to become cheaper. It's all good!

Re:You know what else...

[chrismcb]

The only reason TSA is pervasive is because it is a government handout,

It isn't a government handout... it is a government agency. And if the airport wants to fly airplanes in the US, they don't have a choice. Didn't Texas try this a few years ago?

English ..., do you speak it?

[Anonymous Coward]

The summary is worded such that the scanner being there removes the need for the enhanced pat down. Which means that he doesn't want to do the enhanced pat down (and most people wouldn't want to be enhanced-pat-downed for fear of creepy peepz).

I probably shouldn't be shocked at how many people can't read with understanding. :/

Reading comprehension problem...

[Frosty Piss]

He says the scanner provides an excuse for them to do "enhanced patdowns".

Either you are a âoetrollâ or you have a reading comprehension problem. What he said was:

...called the scheduled removal of her airport's scanner 'a great disservice to the flying public' in part because it 'removed the need for the enhanced pat-down

In any case neither "advanced pat-downs" nor this machine are actually necessary for true airport security.

Re:Reading comprehension problem...

[hawguy]

Either you are a âoetrollâ or you have a reading comprehension problem. What he said was:

...called the scheduled removal of her airport's scanner 'a great disservice to the flying public' in part because it 'removed the need for the enhanced pat-down

It's a poorly worded sentence that could easily be misinterpreted to mean "If you remove the machines, it will remove the need for enhanced pat-downs".

Re:Reading comprehension problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a poorly worded sentence that could easily be misinterpreted to mean "If you remove the machines, it will remove the need for enhanced pat-downs".

It is a CLEAR sentence that CLEARLY says that removal of the machine would possibly result in more "enhanced pat-downs". It is *NOT* ambiguous at all.

The OP is clearly trolling.

Re:Reading comprehension problem...

[hawguy]

It's a poorly worded sentence that could easily be misinterpreted to mean "If you remove the machines, it will remove the need for enhanced pat-downs".

It is a CLEAR sentence that CLEARLY says that removal of the machine would possibly result in more "enhanced pat-downs". It is *NOT* ambiguous at all.

The OP is clearly trolling.

Replace "removal" and "scanner" with nonsense words so you can't use your pre-conceived notion of what the sentence means and see if it still is perfectly clear:

who called the scheduled obfrentation of her airport's widgetygook 'a great disservice to the flying public' in part because it 'removed the need for the enhanced pat-down.'"

So is it the scheduled obfrentation that removes the need for pat-downs, or the widgetygook?

Not Removing != Not Using

[spongebue]

Just because the machine is there, doesn't mean it will still get used if TSA says it can't be.

Misleading Headline

[pdbogen]

Wow. Misleading headline is horribly misleading. Quote from one of TFAs:

“We’re really disappointed that the TSA is removing them from our airport,” Martin said. “It is a great disservice to the flying public.
“People had become comfortable with the scanner. It certainly did speed the process and removed the need for the enhanced pat-down.”

i.e., it's not the "removal of the scanner" that "removed the nead for the enhanced pat-down," as the headline deceptively implies. Rather, the scanner itself removed the need. However, as a seasoned frequent flier, I'm quite acquainted with the fact that security checkpoints that do not have body scanners are not subject to an "enhanced pat-down," as Martin implies in the article.

Success rate.

[SuricouRaven]

So... how many confirmed terrorist attacks have these scanners actually stopped, that previous procedures wouldn't have? How about drugs smuggling?

Re:Success rate.

[Rob_Bryerton]

>>How about drugs smuggling?

It depends. Do you mean the flying public, or the TSA smuggling drugs? Because I know TSA employees has been busted smuggling drugs.

Re:Success rate.

[dkleinsc]

So... how many confirmed terrorist attacks have these scanners actually stopped

That's easy: Zero. We don't even have to compare them to the previous procedures - they haven't caught one yet.

Re:Success rate.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

So... how many confirmed terrorist attacks have these scanners actually stopped, that previous procedures wouldn't have?

Zero. Neither the previous procedures nor these machines have ever caught a single terrorist. Literally no one that the TSA has ever detained has been charged with terrorism, much less convicted. Meanwhile there have been essentially no terrorist attacks anywhere else on US soil for the last decade, so it isn't like the threat ot the TSA's scanners have been enough to convince the terrorists to go elsewhere. There just aren't any in the first place.

How about drugs smuggling?

Way too many. Drug smuggling does not constitute an imminent threat (which is the legal rationalization for these scanners) but that doesn't mean they don't bust people with drugs and other contraband that they saw on the scanner while looking for WMDs. Those are basically the only people who get busted by the TSA.

DEFUND THE TSA

[pecosdave]

The Iron Triangle must be broken.

I can think of no government agency more deserving of being defunded, though many others should follow.

Re:DEFUND THE TSA

[zr]

Total killed or kidnapped by terrorism worldwide varies around 40-70 thousand per year. Worldwide.

Annual TSA budget is $8bn.

The number of deaths from traffic accidents is around 30 thousand annually in US alone.

I propose that fedexing half of TSA budget's worth of clean bottled water around the world would save many more lives than TSA could ever hope to.

Re:DEFUND THE TSA

[chrismcb]

How about DHS?

Re:DEFUND THE TSA

[pecosdave]

It's the parent agency to the TSA, so naturally, spread from the limb to the core, then up the supply line.

The anus, the human's equivalent of...

[Anonymous Coward]

the kangaroo's pouch.

All sorts of fun stuff fits in there, but it's twice as hard to put stuff in and three times as hard to pull stuff out. :-P

It's "risk management."

[PhxBlue]

The only reason TSA is pervasive is because it is a government handout, replacing the measures they had in place before 9/11.

It's risk management. In short, no one wants to be the director of the next Logan International Airport -- the takeoff location for two of the four planes involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

That doesn't excuse the BS security theater, but it gives the folks in charge an out in the event their airport is the next Logan.

Re:It's "risk management."

[dkleinsc]

It's risk management. In short, no one wants to be the director of the next Logan International Airport -- the takeoff location for two of the four planes involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The real kicker: There was no failure of security at Logan. The security people at Logan had no indication that the terrorists were bad news, and the box-cutters the terrorists had were at the time allowed on board.

Re:It's "risk management."

[PhxBlue]

There may not have been a failure of security on Sept. 11, but there were numerous security failures leading up to that point, as detailed in an October 2001 New York Times article:

In 1999, a 17-year-old boy dressed as a Hasid climbed over a fence, walked to a runway and boarded a plane bound for London. That same year, an investigation by The Boston Globe found 136 security violations at Logan in the preceding two years. Last week The Globe reported that in the last decade, Logan had one of the worst such records among the nation's major airports, especially when it came to tests in which federal agents tried to get fake bombs or guns past security. It was not clear from the federal data that the newspaper analyzed whether all airports were tested with equal frequency, or if Logan was scrutinized more rigorously than others.

I have little doubt security was one of the factors behind the hijackers' choice of Logan International, along with the availability of trans-national flights that would guarantee a full load of fuel.

Hmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like someone woke up on the retarded side of bed.

Just to address ONE issue.

[Anonymous Coward]

...it 'removed the need for the enhanced pat-down.'"

OK. I know that the TSA is security theater. Got it? Good! I wanted to get that out of the way.

Now since this theater is embedded in our culture (coming from a German-Jewish background I'm really restraining myself here), I'd rather have a person do the security "screening" than a machine that will bombard me with carcinogenic radiation - I don't give a fuck what the manufacturers say about their safety nor did I when the cigarette manufacturers said their products were safe. I've been through the the "enhanced pat downs".

drugs and explosives

[schneidafunk]

How do metal detectors work against drugs & explosives?

Re:drugs and explosives

[Anonymous Coward]

How do metal detectors work against drugs & explosives?

A) It's not the TSA's job to detect drugs.

B) How many explosives has the TSA discovered in its 11(?) years of operation? I suspect the answer is zero or damn near.

Re:drugs and explosives

[Anonymous Coward]

B) How many explosives has the TSA discovered in its 11(?) years of operation? I suspect the answer is zero or damn near.

Exackerly! That's the proof those darn terrorists — who are constantly attacking us, even if you don't see them!!! — are so scared of the TSA, as none of them have dared blow us up a SINGLE DAY in the 11-1/2 years since 9/11! MORE MONEY NOW PLZ KTHNX

Re:drugs and explosives

[JayBat]

Oh, they've found them all right. There's been more than one US soldier that apparently wanted to take home some C4 as a souvenir, and TSA has found a tape-wrapped water bottle full of flash power (i.e, a plastic pipe bomb).

I'm not surprised they catch the C4 My wife frequently travels with chocolate fudge in her carry-on (she has co-workers that *really* like this one particular fudge), and unfrozen gel icepacks in checked baggage (post half-marathon icedown). Both almost always get handchecked. We know to pack both of those at the *top* of the bag for easy access.

-Jay-

Re:drugs and explosives

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, they've found them all right. There's been more than one US soldier that apparently wanted to take home some C4 as a souvenir, and TSA has found a tape-wrapped water bottle full of flash power (i.e, a plastic pipe bomb).

Still counts as damn near.

Oh, C4 is almost useless without a detonator and US soldiers usually aren't terrorists. After all they sometimes carry guns though airport checkpoints. So I'm not worried about them.

And obviously I don't know the circumstances, but I suspect there's a good chance an old-style x-ray machine would have picked up something as suspicious as a tape-wrapped water in someone's luggage.

Re:drugs and explosives

[JayBat]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. *All* of my examples were found by x-ray, either in checked luggage or in carry-on. Only a tiny fraction of passengers go through sniffers and swabbing.

"US soldiers usually aren't terrorists"? That's a useless observation. Mathematicians usually aren't terrorists. Men usually aren't terrorists. Musicians usually aren't terrorists. What does that have to do with anything? Sheesh.

And I'm sure the 13 people killed at Ft. Hood are glad to know that you have determined that US soldiers with guns are of no danger to anybody.

You were wrong sonny, be a man and own up to it. :-)

bevis and butthead now they should make a episode

[Joe_Dragon]

bevis and butthead now they should make a episode where they try to get jobs at the TSA.

How is the Parent "Insightful"?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is the Parent "Insightful" when he CLEARLY misread (or intentioally is trolling) the actual statement?

Something More

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet there is more to this story. I have been to this airport and it sticks out as a very odd set-up.
There is a military base in close proximity to the airport and at this tiny airport with one or two gates you are met by DHS personnel carrying assault rifles in addition to very minimal TSA staff (1 or 2). Its pretty much all one giant room with the back 1/5 or so cordoned off by a security checkpoint with these guards standing both in front of, at, and behind the checkpoint. In fact the process is ticketing counter with the airline, security checkpoint with TSA/DHS then ticket-taker sporting a DHS seal on their uniform standing at podium with giant DHS logo on it and carrying a sidearm.
I went there before the body scanner, security level was orange that week.

Re:Something More

[Anonymous Coward]

Forgot 1 thing.
The TSA employees also wore uniforms I was not familiar with. They were much more formal, frankly it looked like a Dress Uniform for the TSA.

Solution to enhanced patdowns

[Anonymous Coward]

Favorite counter to enhanced pat down problem: spontaneous loss of bladder control.

If enough people do it, perhaps Mr Mercer will lose his fondness of the pat-downs and send the machines back so that he doesn't have to do them anymore.

p.s. loss of bowel control optional, but encouraged. just blame the airport food.

this is not the peepshow scanner they have

[swschrad]

the millimeter wave (aka microwave, aka popcorn button) scanner in Helena is newer equipment that does not provide the peepshow images, folks. as such, TSA must deem it too nice to have in Helena. maybe they should do their grope act in New York and Phoenix and other large, visible places instead of out in the hinterlands. show their nonsense act for what it is.

removed the need for the enhanced pat-down.

[Anonymous Coward]

Further proof that the "enhanced pat-down" procedure is a stick/threat, and not a method.

A disservice?

[pouar]

The nude body scanners cause a public outcry because of privacy and safety reasons. Getting rid of them is going to make the public happy. Does the manager even pay attention to the public?

Road

[AndyKron]

Does Helena have a paved road yet? Just askin'

Re:bevis and butthead now they should make a episo

[fustakrakich]

Already done

Waste of money!

[Anonymous Coward]

Helena, Montana airport must be the most corrupt airport in the country.
Passengers were just getting comfortable with my hands down their pants.
Boo-hoo.
Rapiscan? More like Rape-scan.

Not much else ...

[PPH]

... to look at during those long Montana winter nights.

Obvious solution..

[EmagGeek]

.. Why doesn't the Helena Montana airport just buy their own goddamn scanner?

Oh that's right, the TSA is just another enormous welfare program for airports nobody uses and morons nobody will hire.

The good ole Ts of A

[horza]

I boycotted going to the states for the past decade, but finally succumbed to peer pressure and flew a couple of times to Vegas. The first time I went via NY and didn't encounter the naked scanners. The second time I went they had them both in France and the USA! Each time I politely asked not to go through, and they were very nice about it. They pulled me aside and told me they would find somebody to examine me and my luggage separately. Each time it didn't take long. Each TSA agent I came across stated they would only be touching my penis and testacles with the back of their hand. Honestly I found them actually very polite and honest people doing a shitty job. Sure if I was an American and believed it was a free democratic country I would have been pretty mad, but being a European already warned it was pretty much a Nazi state I was mentally prepared. Not really too bothered about a guy "touching my junk" as I knew that was a prerequisite of visiting America. There was no pressure to push me through the naked scanners though.

I really feel for you guys :-(. If you can end this ritual humiliation, it will be both good for yourselves and your international image.

Bon chances mes amis,

Phillip.

Re:The good ole Ts of A

[hyades1]

I never have moderator points around when I really need them. Excellent comment!

Long time frequent flying customer.

[Anonymous Coward]

I never fly anymore. Result a whole hell of a lot of money in my pocket.
Driving to grand American hotels is a blast.
Real sight seeing turned out so much better.

Seriously??? WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get the resistance to someone (TSA) trying to insure the safety of the public. Is it a perfect system, no. Is it the only system, no. It is an honest effort and as a frequent flier I appreciate the fact that someone is at least making the attempt to make sure that I get home to my family safe and sound.
I saw the planes hit twin towers in New York, I heard the recording of the phone call from Todd Beamer as he phoned his family from the plane over Virginia before they so bravely attempted to stop the terrorist that KILLED all those aboard that flight. I knew personally people that have been killed in acts of terrorism or aggression. These measures came about as a result of those heinous crimes.What is wrong with you people? Don't like it, the machine or the pat down? Then drive, don't like the price of gas? Buy a horse. Don't like the available options? Come up with something better or shut the hell up. I for one am happy to comply with safety regulations. My freedom or personal space is of no value if I am killed in transit, ask the families of those who's loved ones were lost by people who have no regard for human life if they think safety measures, however marginal, are appreciated. Geez!
Given the rampant and random shooting events taking place, planes blowing up, and other horrific acts inflicted on us by the people around us some sort of safety protocols should respected. Dead is Dead, a little inconvenience for me is OK if that means that that end comes later and in a peaceful manner, not as the result of an act of terrorism. Do I agree with the manager not wanting to replace the scanner, not my call and I do not know enough about the technology to make an informed decision, that's the manager's job and I respect his right to decide.

Re:Seriously??? WTF?

[tekrat]

I too, know people who died on 9/11. I also live in NYC. However, I do not share your opinion that we have to give up essential liberties as the price for 'safety'.

As you say, there are other options, you wanna be safe all the time, don't leave your house. You're more likely to die on the road getting to the airport than you are once you are on the plane.

A hijacking at this point is a near impossibility because the passengers will get out of their seats and beat the shit out of anyone trying to mess with the plane. The cockpit door is locked and armored. Done. We don't need the line for the grope-o-scan. We can go back to what we had previously, before 9/11 -- x-ray carry-on and metal detectors. That's fine.

Security is now so bothersome that the long line to go through security is now the appropriate attack vector of a terrorist/wacko. Just as people run into a shopping mall and start spraying gun fire, sooner or later the long line at security will be the target of a gunman.

So, don't go around thinking you're safer for being stripped of your rights, because you're NOT. As I said, you want to feel safe, don't leave home, stay in bed, don't go out into the world because the world is a dangerous place.

Why Cannot

[Anonymous Coward]

President Barak Hussein Obama use his 'Executive Order' to order the killing of Janet Napolitano and ALL Washington DC employees of Department of Homeland Security, which exists illegally and has committed acts of murder, theft, grand larceny, Crimes Against Humanity.

Hey Obama-kun, want to cut 50 billion dog dollars from the FY13 budget ?

Kill Department of Homeland Security and Janet Planet Napolitano and her lap dog John Pistol along with all managers !

Simple

fourth amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Attempting to travel, even via airplane, is not probable cause for justifying a search of any kind.

A word to the wise about that site

[Burz]

Infowars is like a great big blender without much selectivity: The smoothies that come out are always 'interesting', but the lovely strawberries and steaks that went in to it also had some rat turds thrown in as well.

Re: A word to the wise about that site

[Virtucon]

ewww...

The terrorists really did win

[hyades1]

When Americans have been persuaded to allow their adolescent children to be groped by some mouth-breather who barely scraped through Grade 10 and latched onto his minimum-wage airport job for the "fringe benefits", I guess there's only one conclusion. We can safely assume that, yes, bin Laden got exactly what he wanted as well as what he deserved.

Re:bevis and butthead now they should make a episo

[ebvwfbw]

Funny because it's true.