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.'"

24 of 218 comments (clear)

  1. News for nerds by philmarcracken · · Score: 5, Funny

    Stuff that mattressssssss

    1. Re:News for nerds by nickserv · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    2. Re:News for nerds by daem0n1x · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:News for nerds by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:News for nerds by sI4shd0rk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    5. Re:News for nerds by kilfarsnar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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)
    6. Re:News for nerds by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > 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"
    7. Re:News for nerds by sI4shd0rk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    8. Re:News for nerds by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:News for nerds by CowTipperGore · · Score: 5, Informative

      So you can get to the front of the security line, see the x-ray machines, metal detectors, scanners, etc., you're free to turn around and leave, and the TSA cannot prevent you from leaving.

      I'm afraid you're wrong.

      It's a fourth amendment issue only if they prevent you from voluntarily leaving after deciding that you'd feel violated.

      "Once a person submits to the screening process, they can not just decide to leave that process," says Sari Koshetz, regional TSA spokesperson, based in Miami. Such passengers will be questioned "until it is determined that they don't pose a threat" to the public.

      Once you are near the TSA security check points, you are not allowed to leave. The "Don't touch my junk" guy was told that he was being ejected from the airport while simultaneously being told that he would be arrested and fined $11,000 if he tried to leave. Not only was the underwear dude in San Diego arrested, another passenger who filmed the encounter on her iPhone also was arrested and had her phone confiscated for "illegally filming".

      What's your position on this now?

  2. Exaggerated headline by SirGarlon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  3. What's the "news"? by fatphil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  4. Re:Aaaah TSA by Thanshin · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's unfair and unconstitutional.

    I shouldn't have to lose my right to be seen naked just to get the groping.

    Both the groping and the nude pictures are paid by my taxes! If I want them both I should get both!

  5. Pro tip: Things people don't like by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
  6. Re: Yea by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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);
  7. Re:Missed opportunity by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, but then someone would point out that old people just don't give a shit. It's what makes them so endearing.

  8. Re:Don't poke the peons by pngwen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They did willingly sign up to work for the TSA. They have also witnessed and participated in violations of American's rights, and they remain at their posts. Therefore they are culpable as traitors to the cause of liberty. Should justice ever prevail, their heads will line the streets of our free cities!

    --
    I am the penguin that codes in the night.
  9. Re:Its only a sensible precaution by TWiTfan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
  10. Gotta search 'em all! by Chelloveck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Gotta search 'em all! by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      A thousand times this.

      Pre-911 hijackings weren't a huge issue. You played along, kept your head down, and eventually you'd be released after the hijackers made their statement. It was a huge inconvenience and I'm sure scary at the time, but playing along meant you were safe.

      On 911 passengers played by the pre-911 rules assuming they would just be diverted to Mexico or something. The last plane got word of what happened to the previous 3 and fought back.

      Post-911 security improvements have made another 911 virtually impossible. And by security improvements, I mean locked, reinforced cabin doors. Not TSA "security theater" checks. In addition, passengers won't trust any potential hijacker who says everyone will live if they just stay in their seats. A hijacker will quickly find himself outnumbered 30-1 by people who are facing death if they don't take him down and who, unlike the hijacker, don't want to die.

      This isn't to say that no terrorist will ever bring a plane down again. Just that it will be extremely difficult for them to do so. They can get more bang for their buck (pun intended) by switching to other targets. Crowded airport security lines in major airports. (A few of these hit at the same time will ground all flights.) Crowded malls during the Christmas rush. Big sports events. These would all cause a lot of chaos and would be more likely to succeed than an airplane attack.

      Of course, even then terrorism would be rare in the US. Look at the number of people who have died from terrorist attacks in the US over the last 15 years. Going by Wikipedia, that's about 3,038. This is only 203 people per year. If we don't count 9-11 (as it is obviously not a normal occurrence given the death tolls of the other terrorist attacks), we're down to 3 people per year. More people die from nut allergies each year (about 150) and I don't see us declaring a War on Nuts.

      This terrorism-paranoia is ridiculous. We need to stay alert, yes, but we don't need to give up our freedoms to ensure our safety.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  11. Re:Its only a sensible precaution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    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.

    While OBL wasn't one of the 9-11 hijackers, some of the ones who were were university educated.

    This meme that the archetypical Muslim terrorist is poor, illiterate, and has no other options needs to go away. We can't address the problem with incorrect presumptions floating around.

  12. Re:Its only a sensible precaution by Guru80 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Being university educated doesn't necessarily mean you aren't gullible and stupid.

  13. Fun with the TSA and similar clows elsewhere by Confused · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Those passenger screenings are as we all know a big charade. Here's an anecdote of Munich Airport in Germany - probably the most idiotic airport in Germany I had to travel through.

    While most airports in Germany don't care about cameras, Munich airport has a special fetish for controlling cameras. 2 times out of 3 they want me to take my dSLR out of my Backpack to finger it. Usually they want me to turn it on and look through it, but my friendly offers to take an image to prove it works usually ends it panicky horror. Whatever.

    So I got a little pissed of and decided the next time to take out the battery of the camera. And sure enough they wanted to to search it again and asked me to turn it on. As usual, I turned the Power switch to on, but without battery nothing happened, and handed the camera to the goon. I don't know what he ascertained with his ritual, but after looking through it, he was happy the camera without power is real.

    As at that time I was playing around with long-exposures during daytime, I carried with me an ND1000 filter. This is basically a piece of black glass that lets through only minimal light. It's about as dark as welders glasses or those things you used to observer the sun during an eclipse. In the rather low light at the airport, you don't see anything through that filter. So evil me removed the battery again and screwed that filter on in front the next times I flew out of Munich. Out of about 5 manual checks, here's the breakdown:

    2 checked the camera after the power-up without battery and the black glass in front of the lens the usual way by looking through it and doing their magic ritual. The fact that the camera was dead as a brick and the didn't see anything didn't faze them to hand it back satisfied without comment.

    2 wondered why the didn't see anything and looked if the lens-cap was still on. After they saw that no it isn't on and the front is some kind of glass, they relooked through the camera - without seining anything more - and were happy with the results.

    Only one out if the 5 asked why he can't see anything and when I told him, that this is a special filter for long exposure was also happy to let me pass. Asking to remove it for the check wasn't in his book.

    So 5 out of 5 weren't bothered by the fact that turning the camera on has no visible effect and the same 5 in the end were also happy that they didn't see anything when they looked through the camera.

    What a strange world we live in!

  14. Re:That is misleading by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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