Slashdot Mirror
87-Year-Old World War II Veteran Takes On the TSA
McGruber writes "Orlando Sentinel columnist Lauren Ritchie has written about how Transportation Security Administration (TSA) checkpoints handle her father Sam, an 87-year-old who has a propensity to question authority in a quiet way, and make his target feel stupid. Sam points to the signs that the TSA posts stating that those above the age of 75 don't have to take off their shoes for screening. Maybe the TSA thinks all old people wear floppy tennies, but Sam's favorite pair have metal. So every time Sam goes through the screening, an alarm goes off, and an officer makes him remove his shoes. And every time he feels compelled to test the TSA. Sometimes, Sam spots them a few points by warning them ahead of time that his shoes have metal.... it got to be a ritual for a while, ending with him throwing his hands up and remarking to the TSA person: 'Hey, something's not right here.'"
Here the headline led me to believe a member of the Greatest Generation was stepping up *again* to defend American freedom. You know, maybe filing a lawsuit or something. But no, TFA is just about the author's father being a passive-aggressive jerk in the airport security line. As if that helps anyone. If all you are accomplishing is to make yourself feel smarter than a TSA screener, you are not accomplishing much at all.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Am I right in thinking that whole jabbering mess could be condensed to "my deaf relative annoys TSA people in airports"?
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Poor schlub is just trying to take home a paycheck. He (or she) did not make the stupid rules; she (or he) just has smell feet all day.
Take the TSA to court, or send letters to your congresscritter, or something. Don't make life more miserable for the privates.
(Did I mention that the TSA is just a depression-era jobs program wrapped up in patriotism and fear?)
Cranky old man causes shit in lineups. News at 11.
WTF is this doing on Slashdot?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
People don't like having pointed out the logical inconsistencies of the way the do things, and it has a tendency to piss them off. This is not limited to TSA personnel. However the consequences of pissing off certain people (especially those who hold power over you) is something that you need to take into consideration before you do so.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
What amazes me is that we have a raging younger generation upset about loss of freedom, but it is the oldest generations that are actually standing up to the system.
I guess you could count Snowden and Wikileaks as contributions from the tech generations.
Sign of the times and our culture. I'd certainly support more civil disobedience, as long as it wasn't me... and I feel that is why big brother is still doing what they are.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
This is a non-story.
TFA says nothing like the guy ever challenged the TSA. It was his daughter he challenged pointing out the sign that people over 75 don't have to take off their shoes. He's just not taking his wallet out for anyone and therefore getting the full search but he doesn't resist or try to engage the TSA. The author / daughter even says he very likely can't hear a word the TSOs say to him. So, exactly how does that qualify as him taking on the TSA?
Newsflash /. editors, yes we have no love for the TSA but, we're not stupid and don't appreciate totally misleading story titles!
Less *is* more.
You can bet there are some 87-year old Muslims out there who would love to take a shoe-bomb if they thought they could get through.
Radical Islam specializes in young men for their operations, not old. It's only logical for a polygamous religion. Allowing men to marry as many women as they can afford means that you're going to have a lot of horny, angry young men on your hands who don't get ANY wives (or even get laid, since they don't like that either). So, assuming a equitable birthrate of males and females, you need some way to get rid of all those angry young men. So either you have a war or you con them into believing that they can have all the wives they want in heaven if they'll just walk into the nearest mall and blow themselves up. Sure, it's dumb as shit. But when you're talking desperately horny, poor, illiterate goat farmers--you can talk them into pretty much anything.
If someone has made it to 87 in this environment, odds are that they're one of the smart ones at the top of this big religious pyramid scam who actually have something to lose. Notice that Osama Bin Laden wasn't one of the 9-11 hijackers. He was sitting back safely in his bunker with his several wives, while the young saps killed themselves for Allah.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
I bet this guy's raves are more about the fact that they let ethnics on the force than they are about whatever injustices he imagines about having to take off his shoes like the rest of us.
You have slave mentality. The injustice is anyone having to take off his shoes at all.
I'm all for baiting the TSA. Most of their security measures are just plain ridiculous. I swear that after the shoe bomber got them to make us take off our shoes, the underwear bomber was sent in to see if they'd strip search us. (And they responded with backscatter scanners. Discuss.)
But, applying the same security measures to everyone -- old, young, crippled, whatever -- is not among their failings. That's the only part of what they do that makes sense. Once you declare a "safe" class of passengers who get waved through the searches, you're tempting The Bad Guys to enlist members of that class. Do 90 year old guys get a pass? I'm sure The Bad Guys can find some disgruntled nonagenarian to stuff some C4 down his pants or carry the dreaded 3.1 ounces of liquid explosive. The only way security searches work is if they're applied to everyone.
Of course, the TSA can't even get that right. They introduced their Pre-Check program which reduces the checks to pre-9/11 levels for pre-approved travelers. So how hard would it be to recruit some guy who qualifies for the Pre-Check lane to be the bomb mule?
Psssst! Hey Bad Guys! Want to cripple air travel in the US? Just bomb a couple airport security checkpoints. Lots of people, tightly packed together, all standing in a nice line, and no chance of being discovered early. Hit a couple of those and we'll shit ourselves trying to figure out how to strip-search passengers without causing big, vulnerable holding areas. It's a pretty damned obvious target. The fact that it hasn't happened in the past 12 years is the best evidence that there really isn't a legion of Bad Guys out there just waiting for the chance to attack. They've had the chance. We've gift-wrapped it for them. Now let's just admit that the bogeyman is mostly in our imaginations.
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
Violating people's freedoms and the constitution is not and never will be "sensible." Even if this nonsense did make us safer (And it doesn't; secured cockpit doors and the willingness of passengers to fight back are the important things that have changed, and neither violate anyone's rights.), freedom is more important than safety from some bogeyman.
Ignorance is a choice
wasting the time of innocent people trying to catch their planes.
Blaming the victim, are we? Who's really wasting everyone's time here (and violating everyone's freedoms)? The government thugs who harass people who simply want to get on a plane, or the innocent people who... simply want to get on a plane. Heaven forbid anyone even do so much as slightly question evil authority figures; that might inconvenience the people in line behind you! Woe is them!
Ignorance is a choice
You have a suicidal mentality.
Why, because he'd probably prefer to take the 0.0000000001% chance that a bomb would go off on a plane (most likely with or without the TSA) while he's on it than have everyone's freedoms be violated by slimy, worthless government thugs?
The injustice is bombs on planes.
But violating people's rights in an effort to keep people safe isn't an injustice?
Ignorance is a choice
Being university educated doesn't necessarily mean you aren't gullible and stupid.
You have slave mentality. The injustice is anyone having to take off his shoes at all.
You have a suicidal mentality. The injustice is bombs on planes.
Which bombs are these that the TSA has prevented from being taken onto a plane?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
As opposed to the imperialism of western, mostly Christian nations, which is noted for sending women in their 50s off to invade other countries.
The use of young men as cannon fodder is unrelated to polygamous religion.
Some of the 9/11 hijackers were married. Some had been to college. Most were middle-class.
But don't let facts get in the way of your ignorant Islamophobia.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Do they have a warrant to take my shoes off and look inside? Or is this one of those blanket 'yeah we made a law to cover every aspect of that so deal with it' moments and to hell with the constitution? Even reading the *summary* you can see the guy is pointing out they do not even bother to follow their own rules.
Its not a slippery slope. Its just against the spirit of the law all together, and you could argue the letter. If you do not understand that, you have not read your history and *why* they made those laws. Each of the things in the bill of rights happened, regularly. Not only did they happen they were sanctioned by the English Crown.
IANAL, but its pretty clear you are not either.
So we cant talk about the laws because we are not lawyers? I have known many lawyers. Most are full of a heaping helping of brown stuff. Some are very smart. But their job is to twist laws to suit their clients purpose (sometimes their own). Sometimes that means reading the law literally. Sometimes that means construing things that are not there. Sometimes that means combining 2-3 other bits of 'case law' to get what they want. They do not always succeed. Sometimes case law is wrong. It is why they can be overturned. For example slaves are considered property under previous case law. That can be forfeited. If slaves are property then by extension you can own property, they by extension again you can own slaves. However it took a constitutional amendment law to strike that down.
> You think taking your shoes off violates your fourth amendment rights?
No, only if taking off the shoes was ordered by a government agent or otherwise required by a federal law, then yes, yes it is a violation of fourth ammendment rights. A private airline may put whatever restrictions they like on passengers buying tickets. FFS if fubar airlines wanted to ask every passenger to submit to a strip search, and informed them of this before they bought their ticket... you wouldn't hear a peep from me. (except about why I wont fly on their airline)
However, the government, very specifically, is bound to a code of civil rights which includes standards which, constitutes the agreement under which they operate, and especially conduct searches. If they do not respect civil rights, then they are acting beyond their agreed authority.
As far as I am concerned, even a metal detector is more search than the constitution authorizes. Anytime you are looking for anything, its a search, and if you are looking on another persons person, aside from what is plainly visible without aid, you are searching them. Its pretty fucking simple.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Freedom is the issue here. Even if the security works, people's freedoms must not be violated.
How many armed robberies occur in police stations?
How many 9/11-scale attacks occurred before 9/11--and since we're talking about the TSA--in the US? Your chances of dying in a terrorist attack have always been infinitesimal.
Might you be one of those people that is baffled and troubled by increased incarceration rates while crime is falling?
Might you be one of those people who confuse correlation with causation?
Proper security measures increase the risk of failure and detection for terrorists.
And you assume the TSA is relevant here, or are you speaking of proper security measures like securing cockpit doors, which violate no one's rights?
Which actual right, as defined in law as interpreted by the courts, is being violated?
I'm not interesting in what your precious thugs have to say, bootlicker. From slavery to the internment of people of Japanese descent, the US government alone (as well as every other government) has committed many atrocities. Laws can be wrong. Interpretations can be wrong.
As for what's being violated, it's the fourth amendment, as well as privacy.
Absolutely nothing is a violate of people's freedoms to you if the government says it isn't. Do you even have a mind of your own?
Ignorance is a choice
Neither does histrionics and paranoia. The simple fact is that airport security has nothing to do with keeping you safe and has been shown to be highly ineffective at stopping any real attempt to circumvent them. It's security theater, not actual security. Terrorism and the war on terror isn't about saving lives or fighting bad guys, it's about suppressing freedom and oppressing the populace. If you think otherwise, you're ignorant to reality.
I got here through a series of tubes
Well that's it then, requiring people to take off their shoes one extra time a day is the first step on the path to genocide. Who knew?
You do, now. Slippery slope is a real world problem not a fallacy when it comes to exercise of government power.
Claiming that requiring people to take off their shoes once before boarding a plane is a movement down the "slippery slope" to genocide is ludicrous.
Ok, why is it ludicrous? Twelve years ago Richard Reed tried to blow up a plane with plastic explosives which were fashioned into the soles of his shoes. Since then several hundred million people in the US have had to take off their shoes a few billion times. A small event led to a vast, harmful reaction that hasn't stopped.
I see it as a haphazard acclimation to tyranny. There isn't a deliberate move to authoritarianism, it's just a natural consequence of these increasing constraints on our freedoms wordwide, with new constraints created as the public becomes accustomed to the older ones. Since the shoe thing, we have in addition, the backscattering x ray which effectively images us in the nude (and which incidentally has no security justification) and the unlawful NSA spying on all electronic communication worldwide.
That's what makes slippery slope a real, live argument. We see here that the step historically is part of a huge landslide that is still sliding.
The real difference is more likely to be that Italians don't have to fly everywhere as they have a functional rail system and a relatively small country. So it's probable that at any one time, most haven't (yet.)
My experience is that people who "dress up" to fly either have to, because they're flight attendants (or whatever - I feel for you), or they're unfamiliar with flying, how uncomfortable it is, and think it's realistically portrayed in commercials as some kind of high living sorta-good-taste-in-a-Donald-Trump-would-say-its-classy-way activity epytomized by the term "jet set".
Americans, thanks to the destruction of the rail network in the 1950s and 1960s, really don't have any alternatives, so most Americans have flown at least once, so most Americans know you wear loose or stretchy clothing, comfortable footwear, and leave the uncomfortable suits at home.
The TSA's security checkpoints really haven't made much difference to anything. I flew in the 1990s. I flew after 9/11. There always were security lines. They're just worse - more invasive, with nastier consequences for being suspicious - than they were then.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.