Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation Government Privacy United States News Politics

Freshman Representative Opposes "TSA Porn" 620

Posted by Soulskill
from the things-we-really-really-don't-want-to-see dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Not content to simply follow the 'anything to protect American lives' mantra, freshman Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) has introduced a bill to prohibit mandatory full body scans at airports. Chaffetz states, 'The images offer a disturbingly accurate view of a person's body underneath clothing ... Americans should not be required to expose their bodies in this manner in order to fly.' He goes on to note that the ACLU has expressed support for the bill. Maybe we don't need tin-foil sports coats to go with our tin-foil hats. For reference, the Daily Herald has a story featuring images from the millimeter wavelength imager, and we've talked about the scanners before."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Freshman Representative Opposes "TSA Porn"

Comments Filter:
  • by Art Popp (29075) * on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @11:43AM (#28026307)

    Everywhere else it is vastly less efficient. With every step forward in efficiency comes a step backward in human rights and human dignity.

    Nothing to see here.... Except a new web site called "Are those real?" finally with proof.

    • by FictionPimp (712802) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @11:48AM (#28026383) Homepage

      On the upside, if everyone could see what you looked like naked then just maybe we could gain some headway into stopping the obesity trend in America.

    • by Jafafa Hots (580169) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @11:52AM (#28026473) Homepage Journal

      I've long said, in response to "but this will only make the police's jobs harder!" complaints about court rulings, etc... that that is precisely and specifically what the Bill of Rights was intended to do - make the police's job harder.

      • by jez9999 (618189) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @12:24PM (#28026983) Homepage Journal

        I'm sure on days when attractive women come through the airport, it does make them harder. But I hardly think that's the point of the Bill of Rights.

      • by khallow (566160) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @12:45PM (#28027333)
        The point of the Bill of Rights isn't to make someone's job harder. It's merely to restrict explicitly the power of the US government and to a lesser extent the state governments. There are various things we can do that both make the job of the police easier and at the same time do not violate the Bill of Rights or other parts of the Constitution. For example, we can build databases of crimes without compromising someone's rights (and yes, we can build such a database while blatantly compromising everyone's rights, it's not automatic that this occurs).
        • In counter point, the purpose of the U.S. Constitution is explicitly to make the job of governing more difficult... indeed much more difficult. The founders of the American Republic knew from first hand experience that tyrants and individuals in high positions of authority tend to abuse that authority. So the constitution tried to set up policies and procedures of governance that would diffuse that authority to as many people as possible, with the understanding that from time to time you do need somebody in a position to make a decision that is hard to make.

          This is not restricted to the Bill of Rights, but the whole concept and philosophy of government. Any kind of legislation that promotes this general philosophy is in my opinion something to be admired, and legislation that concentrates authority something to be feared.

          I also find that making life difficult for police officers is typically not nearly as bad as police associations want you to think it may be. If there is any position in society that concentrates authority in regards to an individual citizen, it is the law enforcement officers. They are judge, jury, and prosecutor simultaneously, and from a certain point of view what happens in the court room when they are through is merely an appellate review of their decision... mostly by people who are already close friends with the officer and willing to take the officer's viewpoint of events.

          Generally, a truly professional law enforcement officer will understand legitimate restrictions of their authority and be willing to work within those restraints... realizing that it could be themselves in the same situation in the future. Yes, there are stupid regulations made up by somebody completely unfamiliar with law enforcement responsibilities that do get made by an anonymous bureaucrat that seem to defy reality. Even then, I'd suggest most of those rules were set up to deal with past abuses that you may not be aware of.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by rev_sanchez (691443)
        That sucks. Now if I want to sneak something onto a plane that I can't swallow I'll have to skin a fat person and make a suit of their flesh. On the bright side it also works pretty well for sneaking outside food into the movie theater.
    • by EvilNTUser (573674) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @12:14PM (#28026837)

      They can go through all your data, they can "mistakenly" put you on a danger list, they can force you to leave random stuff behind, and the one thing the politicians take issue with is the one device that might actually make security FASTER because OMG BOOBIES.

      This is a farce, not a victory for "human dignity".

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by arth1 (260657)

        Indeed it is a farce.

        A problem here is that the esteemed young republican from the deep south does the right thing for the wrong reasons. The real issue isn't perceived nudity -- anyone having a problem with others seeing nakedness or immediately equates nakedness to "sex" is a seriously disturbed individual.

        The real problem is the erosion of liberties like "innocent until proven guilty" and "probable cause".

        I hope that the ACLU are very clear on the reasons WHY they are against the scanning, and don't com

        • This is a first (Score:5, Insightful)

          by z80kid (711852) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @12:55PM (#28027501)

          A problem here is that the esteemed young republican from the deep south does the right thing for the wrong reasons.

          This is the first time I've ever heard Utah referred to as "the deep south".

          Mix stereotypes much?

        • by DrVomact (726065) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @01:27PM (#28028033) Journal

          The real issue isn't perceived nudity -- anyone having a problem with others seeing nakedness or immediately equates nakedness to "sex" is a seriously disturbed individual.

          Call me disturbed, but I don't go to nudist beaches because I don't like people looking at me with my clothes off. I figure I have a right to feel that way.

          If some actually good looking women inexplicably wanted to take their clothes off in front of me, I would not raise any objections—but I sure don't have the right to require that they do so. And neither should the government.

          It sounds to me as though you are opposing this just because it was proposed by a Republican. Are you for the new, expanded war in Afgapakistan because a certain Democrat thinks it's a good idea? You need to expand your political horizons a bit.

          • by arth1 (260657) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @02:38PM (#28029065) Homepage Journal

            For the record, I am not a democrat, so your attempt at bipartisan spiel fell flat.

            And no, I don't think anyone should have a right to look at other's private anything without consent or cause and reasonable suspicion, whether that anything is a body or something else.

            This politician rather clearly states that this is problematic because of the view of the body, not that violations of privacy are bad in themselves. If he similarly objected to going through a person's laptop, for the same reasons, I would have applauded. But he doesn't -- it's clearly not the invasion of privacy, but the perceived moral issue related to bodies that is at stake for him.

            I can not support this guy, because it will be interpreted as support for Victorian values, not freedom.

        • by ucblockhead (63650) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @01:40PM (#28028249) Homepage Journal

          I don't think it is about the "wrong reasons" as much as you think. There is a very strong psychological association between "nakedness" and "lack of privacy". The reason people don't want to be seen naked isn't just, or even mostly, about sex. It is because when people are dressed, they are hiding all those embarrassing flaws that they don't want others to see. It isn't just about "they might see my naughty bits". It's also "they will see my spare tire". The analogy to privacy in the contents of your purse or your bank account is direct.

          The thing that people forget about privacy is that *everyone* has something to hide. Not because we are doing anything illegal, but for purely psychological reasons, be it the love-letter from a long-lost ex, the sex toy or the Harry Potter slash fic, there are tons of things that people want to keep secret for purely personal reasons, and *this* is why the right to privacy is so important.

        • by msimm (580077)
          Maybe the b00bies concerns is the politicians way of trying to effect change without complicated or overly political arguments, which tend to be unpopular and largely ineffective. I mean, if he approached this like a raving privacy advocate he'd be immediately marginalized, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion because he wouldn't get any media coverage.
      • by Chris Burke (6130) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @12:51PM (#28027425) Homepage

        the one thing the politicians take issue with is the one device that might actually make security FASTER because OMG BOOBIES.

        Yeah well I for one am glad they decided to draw the line fucking somewhere. The Herald is slashdotted or something, but if the images are close to as described, I don't want anyone fucking looking at me like that. It is a matter of dignity. It's bad enough having to take off my shoes, taking off my clothes (virtually or otherwise) is out of the question.

        And how is this faster? The 'previously on slashdot' link says it takes 30 seconds to scan. Security spends a lot less time than that on me personally today in a typical situation. So I'm not seeing any advantage, not that it would be worth it anyway.

        If we can draw a line in the sand with this bullshit, maybe eventually we can start peeling back all the other bullshit too instead of continually losing ground.

    • Homophobes (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @12:31PM (#28027101)

      In Iraq, we used to make our homophobes sit in front of the scanner when we checked personnel requesting entrance to base. It was actually quite amusing to see them squirm.

      Of course, when a woman would come through, we were required to find a female Marine to search/scan her. Though this would only happen once every month or two.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by geminidomino (614729) *

        Of course, when a woman would come through, we were required to find a female Marine to search/scan her. Though this would only happen once every month or two.

        (Not a troll, an actual question).

        Is that sort of search/scan security the bailiwick of the Marines exclusively, or is it only the Marines that have enough women over there for you guys to be able to find one to do it? Genuinely curious.

        • Re:Homophobes (Score:5, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @12:45PM (#28027327)

          Actually, we had no female Marines attached to our unit. Most security details do not. We would have to find a female Marine (or soldier) before we could search any female personnel. This often meant long waits (hours) for those women requesting entrance to the base. Because of the long waits (and the culture), it was rare to have local women request access to the base. Sometimes they would notify us ahead of time which gave us enough time to be prepared. Of course, if it were an emergency or we felt in danger, we were authorized to search them ourselves.

          The policy was implemented out of cultural respect and to keep harassment claims at bay.

  • by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @11:45AM (#28026337)

    Once, passing through LAX, I was pulled aside for a millimeter scan. It was painless and over relatively quickly.

    Here's the problem: all this extra security sucks. And with the numerous accounts of tests showing weapons passing through security checkpoints unnoticed, the extra security is fairly useless as well.

    At least they have a nice shot of my genitals.

    • by TinBromide (921574) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @11:53AM (#28026489)
      Yup, airport security is part of a trend known as "Security Theater". Get the proles to feel secure by making a show of it and then act surprised when the 1 in 10,000,000 event happens with or without the show.

      At least now its a security porn theather...
      • by x_IamSpartacus_x (1232932) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @12:09PM (#28026767)
        The heraldextra link is slashdotted but Google has plenty of examples [google.com] of what the "TSA Porn" pictures are. I could see why people would take offense to these shots. It wouldn't bother me a whole lot if it was a picture of myself but I can identify with the Representative that I wouldn't want anyone to look at these kinds of images of my wife or children.
      • by Shivetya (243324) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @12:14PM (#28026851) Homepage Journal

        So the next time they want a plane they will just board it with baggage handlers and other "service" people.

        It isn't like that those who want to cause mischief aren't beyond planning and implementing across years. Let alone the fact they can read the same papers we can.

        The next plane to come down does so by missile, have a nice day screening passengers for that. It will make the panic against flying after 9/11 look like small potatoes.

        • by TheLink (130905) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @12:33PM (#28027119) Journal
          The next time the terrorists want a plane, they'll just charter one.

          Music artists, movie stars etc don't seem to have any trouble getting all sorts of stuff into their hired planes.

          Once you have a plane (with or without a "payload"), it isn't that difficult to take out multiple other planes in an airport.

          All of this security theater is for show. To make people feel safer. Not to make them safer.

          Nowadays if you try a 9/11 hijack, the odds of the passengers and flight crew taking out the terrorists are higher. Previously nobody bothered to risk their lives to do that since the unwritten rule was if everyone stays in their seats, nobody gets hurt. By breaking that rule, the 9/11 terrorists have "ruined the market" for other hijackers.

          Making people feel safer (they're already fairly safe on planes anyway) can have positive economic benefits. However I'm not sure if the current methods are worth it.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by phouka (224269)

            Security theater is most definitely not for show, and it is just as certainly not to make people feel safer.

            Think about it: What does a politician or government agency benefit by people feeling more secure? Nothing. Scared people are more easily manipulated.

            No, it's not for show or for perceived safety.

            There's only one reason for security theater: CYA. It's so that the next time - and there will be a next time - some terrorist action takes place, the people in positions of power (who would clearly like to r

    • by moderatorrater (1095745) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @12:02PM (#28026641)

      And with the numerous accounts of tests showing weapons passing through security checkpoints unnoticed, the extra security is fairly useless as well.

      This deserves further analysis. We need to remember that, whatever else happens, it's humans who are the ones who finally decide whether something's a weapon or not. Whether something can be used to hijack/destroy and airplane is fairly objective; fingernail clippers cannot, a handgun can. Whether or not a human decides whether it can be is entirely subjective and dependent on many factors.

      First of all, there's the training. They spend at most a few months learning how to foil every single method to get something through security. There's no way they'll catch everything. The x-ray scans of bags moving through the conveyor belts are hard to read and easy to foil. Anyone remember the guy who hid lockpicks in his luggage without any extra scrutiny?

      Second, these people aren't paid a lot of money. There's nothing magical in the amount of money that somebody earns, but it is a fairly good indicator of how much they're valued and trained and the ability to retain talented people. In this case, a talented person is one who can provide thorough security while still making the process run smoothly for all the people involved. With how little they're paid, I'm guessing that TSA agents are by and large not a talented and eager group.

      Third, humans are subject to a lot of biases. Something as simple as how long they've been staring at x-rays can affect how attentive they are. By the 3000th bag, they're not checking as thoroughly as they were with the first one. If they're having a bad day, they're more likely to single out bags or people for additional training and be more strict. If they have an ax to grind against a group for whatever reason, they're going to treat members of that group worse while treating members of groups they like better.

      There's no way around these fundamental problems. Humans are always going to be humans, and as anyone knows who deals with digital security, humans are the weakest link 95% of the time. Most security measures don't take this into account. Nor do they take into account that the system is only as strong as the weakest point, which in this case is probably the x-raying of the bag. Very few people are going to carry a weapon on their person when they can pass it through in their carry ons more easily. The sooner this topic becomes less political and falls into the domain of people with aims towards security instead of publicity, the better.

    • by LatencyKills (1213908) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @12:10PM (#28026783)
      Every time I go through the airport, and regrettably my job has recently involved a fair amount of travel, I'm struck my how pointless the whole security drama is. They're seizing closed soda cans, sealed bottles of water, women are removing flip flops with like 1/4" soles, they're hassling a 90 year old guy over a bottle of eyedrops because he doesn't have it in a quart sandwich bag. Did someone somewhere tell them that the bigger dicks they are, the more pointless inconvenience they create, the more people are going to believe they're safer? Not that it's possible, but I find myself wondering how an airline that advertised itself has having zero security checks would do. It would be an interesting indicator of just how big a terrorist target the average person believes a plane to be.
    • by PCM2 (4486) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @12:38PM (#28027199) Homepage

      Sure, the scan was "painless," as the parent says. As in, I didn't feel my skin tingling or anything. But "relatively quickly" is pretty goddamn relative.

      Here's how it worked: As usual, I put all my metal items into the front pocket of my carry-on, took off my shoes, passed urine and blood samples to the TSA officer (just kidding -- or am I?), and put my bag onto the conveyor belt. Then I waited.

      Station One was a line of three people (at the time). The front person in line was instructed to keep his or her feet behind a yellow line. Directly ahead was a big booth of clear plastic. We each waited our turn to get to the front of the line and wait for a TSA officer to instruct us to proceed to Station Two.

      Station Two, you step up and into the booth itself. There are little feet marks on the floor of the booth that instruct you where to put your feet. You stand there, and you wait.

      Station Three, after a minute or two, a TSA person comes along and instructs you that you may now put your hands on two hand-marks on the wall. Basically, you're now in a position not unlike how you stand when you're being frisked by a cop. Once the TSA officer is satisfied that you're doing it right (it isn't hard), the officer walks away, and you wait.

      After another minute or two and a couple of thumping sounds, the officer comes back and tells you that you can now step down out of the booth ... and over to Station Four. I now notice that I am AGAIN standing in line behind the three people who were in line ahead of me. AGAIN we have to stand behind a yellow line, and all of the officers are acting like that yellow line is a Really Big Deal. Each person waits a minute or two until the TSA officer reappears and instructs them, individually, that they have passed the test and may collect their belongings.

      Except I didn't pass.

      In my case, the TSA officer approached me and informed me that they would need to see what was in my left front pocket. What was in my left front pocket was, not totally without precedent, my wallet. As it turns out, while the old scanners required you to remove all metal objects from your person, the new scanners now require you to remove EVERY object from your person, no matter what it is. They can tell if you're circumcised or not, but apparently they cannot tell that an oblong, slightly curved object of porous, nonmetallic material carried in the pocket of a man's trousers might possibly be his wallet.

      I was escorted to Station Five -- yes, that's right, YET ANOTHER high-security yellow line where I needed to position my feet -- where I was told to wait for a different TSA officer. No doubt this one had a higher security clearance of the type that would allow her to examine the mysterious object. I was instructed to remove the object from my pocket. I did so using my left hand, then rotated my hand slowly so that the object was visible in my palm, revealing that the object was some kind of flat, oblong device made out of black leather. Visibly alarmed, the TSA officer informed me that she would need to open the object for inspection. Disassembly of the device revealed a number of very thin, flat, rectangular plastic objects. Some of them were printed with the logos of major financial institutions. At least one of the rectangular pieces of plastic had my photograph printed on it. In fact, this was the same flat, rectangular piece of plastic that I had showed to a TSA officer about fifteen minutes ago, at Station One. Satisfied, the officer told me I could collect my things.

      So all in all, my experience is that this form of security theater is not only LESS secure than the old system -- because it yields even more, and stupider, false positives -- but it takes longer. Compare to my flight home from Mexico on the same voyage. This was for a flight FROM Mexico TO the United States, mind you -- and yet the officers on the Mexico side practically waved us through the metal detectors. I swear I saw it beep once or twice and the officer just gave the pa

      • by CodeBuster (516420) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @01:58PM (#28028479)

        I am convinced that these new scanners are nothing but another load of horseshit that some big contractor has sold the TSA. There was probably government pork and kick-backs galore, somebody got rich, and Americans (and our ailing airline industry) got screwed again.

        Welcome to the new era of big government control and big government spending. This is why I chuckle every time I hear President Obama talk about how wonderful everything will be once the government starts picking the winners and losers in our economy and spending all of our income on "national priorities" like alternative fuels, high speed trains, loans to the politically favored, etc. If it is all run anything like the TSA (and there is no reason to expect that it will be managed any better) then most Americans are setting themselves up for a rude awakening 10 years down the road when, once again, socialism and massive government spending programs fail to deliver on their lofty promises of prosperity. People who think that government is the answer should take another look at the TSA; that should tell them all that they need to know about "government efficiency".

    • by QuantumRiff (120817) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @12:44PM (#28027307)

      Here's the problem: all this extra security sucks

      Actually, the problem is, that extra security makes you less secure.

      You see a line of people, waiting to go through security as a hassle; A terrorist sees a few hundred people, all confined in a location, and in a point where explosives are not yet checked.

      In this country, one suicide bomber at a security checkpoint line would completely shut down our air travel. What would you do to add additional security without making people bunch up?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Muad'Dave (255648)

      I was recently pulled aside for additional screening leaving Richmond, VA. I was given the choice of the mm scan or a thorough manual pat-down. I told the TSA guy I'd rather have the hand-job. He laughed, and proceeded to give me a very detailed metal detector scan and full-body pat down. Professionally done, and it didn't take that much longer than the mm scan. The scanned folks were asked to stand one way with their feet in the foot outlines, then turn 90 degrees and do it again. I noticed that there were

  • Yes! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @11:45AM (#28026339)
    Now I can exact my revenge on the TSA. After I walk through a couple three times they'll either all be blind or wish they were!
  • by Red Flayer (890720) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @11:46AM (#28026345) Journal

    Maybe we don't need tin-foil sports coats to go with our tin-foil hats

    Who needed a tinfoil sportcoat? I don't care if they see a fuzzy outline of my moobs at the airport.

    A tin-foil jockstrap, on the other hand...

    Well, I use one, and ever since I started using a whole roll of tinfoil, I get lots of extra attention from the ladies. I'm not about to stop using it just because they might stop scanning my nads at the airport.

  • Millimeter waves? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ironchew (1069966) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @11:51AM (#28026445)

    Millimeter-wavelength imaging, eh?
    http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/25/1330256 [slashdot.org]

    The weapon focuses non-lethal millimeter-wave radiation onto humans, raising their skin surface temperature to an uncomfortable 130 F. The goal is to make the targets drop any weapons and flee the scene.

    Just tweak the tuning knob a little bit...

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I know you're joking... but that wouldn't work. It's like saying that you're going to "tweak the tuning knob" on your camera's flash and turn it into a death-ray.

      It's not going to happen.

  • Porn? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GerardAtJob (1245980) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @11:52AM (#28026469)

    He call that porn ? http://www.impactlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/body-scanners-372.jpg [impactlab.com] ...
    If it's this kind of result, I really don't know why he's calling this "porn"...

  • Total Recall (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DamageLabs (980310) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @11:54AM (#28026513) Homepage

    Unfortunately, this is going to be implemented sooner or later. Maybe not in this form or device, but it is a device that nicely complements the airport X-ray machines.

    To the general public, this will mean less waiting time, faster boarding and less hassle through checkpoints. Most of them will look at this, if explained nicely, as a good thing.

  • by Proteus (1926) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @11:57AM (#28026563) Homepage Journal
    Take a moment, e-mail this guy your thanks. Then take one extra minute and tell your representative and senators that this guy has the right idea and should be supported. One message may not make a difference, but millions of slashdotters cheering them on will.
  • by tekrat (242117) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @11:57AM (#28026567) Homepage Journal

    So, when these guys scan someone who's under 18, aren't they liable for charges of child porn?

    It seems to me that we are a nation of wildly conflicting laws, and everything can be "made" illegal in some way, regardless of the actual intent. This is why our courtrooms are so crowded, and 'justice' moves at a snail's pace.

  • Just what we need (Score:5, Insightful)

    by XxtraLarGe (551297) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @11:57AM (#28026569) Journal
    It seems like when the TSA hires airport employees, they have the same guideline for hiring as the government had for hiring cops in "A Clockwork Orange". Every passenger seems to get treated with contempt, the last thing we need is for them to have additional reasons to harass & humiliate passengers.
  • When does it stop? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by trydk (930014) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @11:58AM (#28026601)
    ... and where?

    It has to stop somewhere.

    When does the policymakers (and the public) realise that death from terrorism is negligible compared to other (more or less) avoidable causes.

    How many lives could be saved in the USA alone by free flu vaccines? How many are killed from gun-related shootings? Traffic deaths? ... Come on, terrorism is hardly noticeable in the big scheme of deaths.

    We do not need much airport security, really. Just think about the time, when you could board a plane without being checked, double checked and then frisked. Do not just take my word for it, Bruce Schneier has mentioned it several times, including here [randomhouse.com].
    • by east coast (590680) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @12:05PM (#28026701)
      How many are killed from gun-related shootings?

      As offset by the non-gun-related shootings? I really don't know. I'll have to investigate that.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by canajin56 (660655)
        A drug-related shooting is one where somebody shot somebody over drugs, not with drugs. Therefore, a gun-related shooting is where you tried to short change somebody when buying a gun, so they shot you with it. Shooting somebody while robbing them would then be a wallet-related shooting, not a gun related shooting ;)
    • by tekrat (242117) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @12:09PM (#28026773) Homepage Journal

      Amen brother;

      I was recently watching the news, and they were showing how children are being killed in record numbers by gun violence in Chicago.

      And the reporter asked "If these deaths were caused by the swine flu, the media, government, and the public would be be all over it. But because it's just urban violence, nobody cares about these deaths."

      It seems to me that this country has it's priorities backwards. NOT ok to have 2 people die of Swine Flu, but OK for 30 kids to die from guns. OK for tens of thousands to die from lack of affordable healthcare EVERY YEAR, but billions and trillions spent because 3000 people die from ONE isolated incident of terrorism.

      Yeppers, makes me proud to be an American. I'm gonna throw up now.

      • by niko9 (315647) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @01:12PM (#28027781)

        I was recently watching the news, and they were showing how children are being killed in record numbers by gun violence in Chicago.

        Careful there. By kids do we mean small children shot by stray bullets? Or do we define kids the way Brady Campaign & Co, like to define "kids", as 15 to 21 year old street thugs who are in the process of committing a crime?

        And the reporter asked "If these deaths were caused by the swine flu, the media, government, and the public would be be all over it. But because it's just urban violence, nobody cares about these deaths."

        I disagree. The media always reports stories about gun violence. They always make a big deal about it. But they *rarely* report stories about law-abiding citizens using their legally owned guns to defend themselves. And when it does get reported, the fact that a law abiding citizen did have a gun is casually sanitized from the details. Compare the Wikipedia article of the Appalachian school shooting to what you can Google from the media outlets.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting [wikipedia.org]

        It seems to me that this country has it's priorities backwards. NOT ok to have 2 people die of Swine Flu, but OK for 30 kids to die from guns. OK for tens of thousands to die from lack of affordable healthcare EVERY YEAR, but billions and trillions spent because 3000 people die from ONE isolated incident of terrorism.

        Sorry, but people making much ado about terrorism is the same as people making much ado about the so-called "gun-violence" epidemic. There is no epidemic. People advocating stricter "control" measures don't give a crap about safety; they have deep rooted fears only care about controlling other people and situations beyond their control.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Even more people die in car accidents than due to gun violence.

          I'll let you conclude that we should get rid of cars.

    • by Tetsujin (103070) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @01:38PM (#28028215) Homepage Journal

      It stops when people are so fed up with this nonsense that they won't fly on airlines any more. When that happens, the airlines, desperate to be able to do business again, will push for the security theater to be ramped down a few notches - and since something that matters would then be on the line (i.e. money, as opposed to abstract "human rights") then those with the ability to make this crap stop would finally be motivated to do so.

      I'm taking not one, but two trips halfway across the US or more this year, I won't be flying on either trip. I'm sick of all this TSA crap.

  • by 192939495969798999 (58312) <info AT devinmoore DOT com> on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @12:10PM (#28026781) Homepage Journal

    Bonus points to the first person who goes through the millimeter wave scanner at the airport and:
    -wears the biggest strap-on possible
    -writes "fuck you", etc. in metallic-fleck paint across their chest
    -gets a call from a TSA screener after writing their phone number on their private parts
    -sends a screener running screaming from the room without doing anything in particular other than going through the scanner

  • by snspdaarf (1314399) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @12:13PM (#28026823)
    Have you ever spent any time at a shopping mall looking at people and trying to imagine them without any clothes? I mean every single one of them, not just the hot ones. Now, imagine what it would be like to operate one of these scanners at an airport. I expect the mental health claims for screeners to go up like a homesick angel. Seventy-year-old people going commando, the business man in the penis pouch, shemales, the list of things I would not want to see goes far beyond the overweight.
  • by Animats (122034) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @12:15PM (#28026865) Homepage

    I'm disappointed that millimeter wave scanning and Z-backscatter hasn't yet made it to nightclubs. Security there can be more intrusive than at airports. Nightclub goons actually pat you down, which TSA doesn't do.

    It would be fun to have the scans of people coming in on monitors around the club. Wny not? The clubbing crowd isn't that modest.

  • by YourExperiment (1081089) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @12:18PM (#28026887)

    What a surprise that the first link to be slashdotted is the one purporting to contain pictures of naked people.

    Personally, I didn't click on that link at all.

  • Prudishness (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pete-classic (75983) <hutnick@gmail.com> on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @01:11PM (#28027777) Homepage Journal

    It's a crying shame that prudishness amongst politicians is the last remaining defense of our privacy.

    -Peter

There are worse things in life than death. Have you ever spent an evening with an insurance salesman? -- Woody Allen

Working...