The Ineffectiveness of TSA Body Scanners 494
TheNextCorner points out a video that lays bare a glaring flaw in the TSA body scanners used in airports to detect weapons and explosives. In such scans, citizens are depicted in light colors, while metallic objects show as very dark. The problem comes when you consider that the images are taken with a dark background. From the transcript:
"Yes that’s right, if you have a metallic object on your side, it will be the same color as the background and therefore completely invisible to both visual and automated inspection. It can’t possibly be that easy to beat the TSA’s billion dollar fleet of nude body scanners, right? The TSA can’t be that stupid, can they? Unfortunately, they can, and they are. To put it to the test, I bought a sewing kit from the dollar store, broke out my 8th grade home ec skills, and sewed a pocket directly on the side of a shirt. Then I took a random metallic object, in this case a heavy metal carrying case that would easily alarm any of the “old” metal detectors, and walked through a backscatter x-ray at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. On video, of course. While I’m not about to win any videography awards for my hidden camera footage, you can watch as I walk through the security line with the metal object in my new side pocket."
Stop aiding (Score:5, Funny)
the enemy by pointing out stupidity!
Re:Stop aiding (Score:4, Insightful)
the "enemy" is much smarter than 10000 bureaucrats being sold by a used car salesman
after all this decades enemy has sustained life for thousands of years in an environment most of our citizens would die in, in a matter of hours... they do have some tricks "up their sleeve"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
One day, a man tripped over a gopher hole. The entire TSA yelled, "OW! My ASS!".
Re:Stop aiding (Score:5, Funny)
I really want to understand this joke.
Re:Stop aiding (Score:4, Informative)
I really want to understand this joke.
It's a saying - "they can't tell the difference between their ass and a hole in the ground'
Re:Stop aiding (Score:5, Funny)
I can certainly tell the difference between that joke and something funny...
Re:Stop aiding (Score:4, Funny)
But he'll never, never fight over you so you're toast, loserboy nerd.
Re:Stop aiding (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
... after all this decades enemy has sustained life for thousands of years in an environment most of our citizens would die in, in a matter of hours... they do have some tricks "up their sleeve"
Yes, but its not being smarter. I'd say the smarter people relocated to more pleasant and more bountiful areas.
Being less open to change, or perhaps fearful of change, seems a better characterization.
Re: (Score:3)
Translation (Score:5, Funny)
It's more understandable if you read it like it's a broken up radio transmission from Metro 2033. With a Russian accent of course.
the "enemy" is much smarter than 10000 bureaucrats [GARBLED] being sold by a used car salesman ... [UNINTELLIGIBLE] ... after all this decades enemy has sustained life for thousands of years in an environment most of our citizens would die in, in a matter of hours...[CRACKLE] they do have some tricks "up their sleeve"
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Stop aiding (Score:4)
An alternative (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the government could stop aiding the enemy by being stupid.
SSDD (Score:5, Insightful)
-- George Carlin
Re:SSDD (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes I remember George Carlin & Hunter S. Thompson are both dead now.
I get sad when I do that.
Re:SSDD (Score:4, Insightful)
And Vonnegut.
Hunter S. Thompson took his own life (Score:4, Interesting)
I read somewhere that he shared me own diagnosis of Schizoaffective Disorder. That's a bad diagnosis if You Are The NRA.
I have an Idaho state gun safety card and my father was a Naval officer so I know how to handle a gun with complete safety. but I don't go near the things not because I would fail the background check but because I know very well that the day would be bound to come when I start shooting at my own hallucinations.
I have a close friend who is licensed for concealed carry because her clients are suchnwarm fuzzy people. She takes all the same medicines I do yet is completely unaware that she is severely in the grip of paranoid schizophrenia.
I hallucinate on a regular basis but for reason I have been struggling to figure out for decades I always can readily distinguish between what I really see and what my mind makes me experience as seeing. note that that does not make the hallucinations go away, it just enables me to sanitize my input.
But rather frightening to me is that a whole bunch of times my friend gas pointed out her hallucinations to me then either gone chasing after them or fled from them.
The federal gun background check is completely cool with batshit crazy people purchasing all manner of powerful firearms. bur perfectly sane people check into psychiatric inpatient units for reasons that are completely resolved upon their discharge. At that point they are not permitted to possess firearms for the next five years. Not only may they not purchase any they must surrender any guns already in their possession.
I've been struggling desperately to clue my friend into the fact that she is paranoid and that she hallucinates. Even more frustrating than the drug addict's denial is that she readily agrees and in fact can discuss her madness quite insightfully, yet she remains unaware if what her medicines are prescribed for. Once we stop actively discussing her paranoia she becomes completely enmeshed in it again.
Re:SSDD (Score:5, Funny)
I'm still waiting to get asked to go through one of these scanners (UK doesn't send everyone through them).
I can get naked in under 5 seconds, and plan to demonstrate this skill as soon as they request naked pictures of me.
Only fair I share the wealth of my gorgeous nakedness with everyone in the airport when requested to do so by airport staff.
My wife panics everytime we get near them, she knows I'll do it, and is obviously petrified I'll get mauled by all the sex hungry girls in the vicinity.
Re:SSDD (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure. Meanwhile, funneling mountains of money into BS like this, not to mention all the military hardware, ends up leaving more people out in the cold, and effectively killing them, than all terrorist attacks of all history combined, and people who do the real harm get rewarded for it ("too big to jail"). I mean, it's not like people have this inate tendency to be hateful towards freedom and generosity -- it's just that that's all pretty much BS, and for all we know, every single terrorist was trained by the CIA, because that's what's needed to keep people in check and the actual wolves running wild. That surely would make more sense than the hilarious explanation you're offering. Thanks for the chuckle though.
Re:SSDD (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, funneling mountains of money into BS like this, not to mention all the military hardware, ends up leaving more people out in the cold,
There are several assumptions (mostly incorrect) in your post:
A) that money that is spent on airport bs would otherwise be allocated to "the people out in the cold"
B) that there are a large number of people in this country dying of exposure (the number is astonishingly low)
C) That those who DO die of exposure could have been saved with more money
D) that if the government doesnt become a charity, then it is responsible for their deaths
You may want to reexamine these assumptions. B especially you may want to research.
Re:SSDD (Score:5, Insightful)
A large part of the US military spending goes to destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan. Both in the name of liberation and whatnot - but the fact is that lots and lots of locals have been killed, either directly by bombs or bullets, or indirectly due to loss of their home and destruction of general infrastructure in their countries.
Not bombing Iraq and Afghanistan would save the US a lot of money (effectively lowering your immense deficits), and would have saved many lives in the countries affected. Not having military operations all over the world would possibly even have prevented many terrorist attacks to happen in the first place, due to less bad blood about US activities.
Sure you can not prevent all actions from all mad men. Most bombings on US soil have been by US nationals. But not meddling in other countries' internal affairs helps a lot (and that's not an endorsement of either the Taliban or of Saddam Hussein). Leave that meddling to the UN, it's what that organisation was set up for to begin with.
Re:SSDD (Score:4, Insightful)
A large part of the US military spending goes to rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq, which is the real problem. The military is meant to blow things up and kill people. Spending military money on building schools and infrastructure is no longer military money. I suppose if the UN actually had any teeth and actually did things like, oh, follow up on their word when they say things like "let the inspectors in...or else!", then we wouldn't have things like Iraq (well, if there had been a different US President AND the UN did its job, I suppose).
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SSDD (Score:5, Informative)
That the UN fails in many situations does not mean the UN is not the body that is supposed to handle it. One of the reasons the UN fails is that many countries, the US being a notorious example, don't accept the UN's decisions and go their own way. Or simply do not pay their dues, either in cash or man power. That is the problem.
The UN was set up to handle international conflict in a peaceful way, and to enhance peace in general. The fact that we have the UN is a success in itself. That it's not set up properly (e.g. giving six countries absolute veto power - thus allowing a single country to override consencus reached by the rest of the world), is another matter.
Example Fail (Score:5, Insightful)
Korea? The only reason action was taken in Korea was that the Soviets boycotted the session in question, avoiding a Security Council veto. The UNC structure and DMZ are still there, 60 years on. All of the allied nations have fled except the US. There's a rousing success story.
South Korea has about 49 million people living in it. Depending on how you count it, they have the 12th or 15th highest GDP in the world . I think 49 million people would argue that it is a rousing success story. Moron. However, I do agree with your general point that the UN is mostly a legacy of failure, but your cited example of South Korea is a big time fail.
Re:SSDD (Score:5, Informative)
Everything going on in that region can be traced back to the pipelines. There is billions of dollars to be made. Natural gas is really cheap right now, there is lots of it, so the strategy is to destroy everybody else's pipeline so you can charge monopoly prices for transmission in yours. The US military is used for these energy companies. They are still in Afghanistan because it's an important transmission route for gas and oil [state.gov]. There is bombing and fighting is Homs Syria because that's where the construction of the Arab pipeline is stalled. The US is now supporting the TIPA pipeline, which will go through Afghanistan. The competition would be the TI pipeline, which is the real reason [cbsnews.com] for all the saber rattled over Iran.
Here's a clue: Why is Gohmert trying to carve out an independent province in Pakistan [house.gov]? Because that's where the TAPI pipeline would be built through. The Pakistanis are rightfully pissed about it [newkerala.com].
Re:SSDD (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, this is both an insightful and informative post. If people want to understand why the world is the way it is, this type of thing is a good place to start. The US military has been the enforcement arm of corporate America for a century if not longer. The wars and conflicts we have engaged in have had much more to do with that than with freedom, or liberty or human rights, or any of the other claptrap the media sell us.
And yes, Curunir_wolf, you are a crackpot. You are a crackpot because none of this dynamic is ever explained to the American people, and they will look at you like you are crazy if you try to explain it. They can't fathom that Brian Williams could be bullshitting them (whether he knows it or not). So they walk around with their heads up their asses about how their country actually operates on the world stage. Thanks for the links.
Re:SSDD (Score:5, Informative)
In Europe shelter is a human right, meaning that if someone really has absolutely nowhere they can stay then society (via the government) is responsible for getting a roof over their head. The accommodation provided is horrible and no-one would want to stay there, but basically we put an end to people sleeping rough on the streets. It didn't even cost that much.
The US could do it too, and the problem isn't money. The problem is that such a move by the government would be politcally unacceptable. Charities helping is fine for some reason, but not making it an actual right that the government must uphold.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:SSDD (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't worry, there won't be any of those soon. The Government is rounding them all up and forcing them to leave in preparation for the 2012 Olympics.
Re:SSDD (Score:4, Informative)
Re:SSDD (Score:4, Informative)
The stupid part is, there is a place for them all to go in Germany. There is a whole infrastructure in place to help them out... a dry warm place to live (albeit basic and not luxurious by any stretch of the imagination, but it beats sleeping rough on a U-Bahn floor), food, medical. There is no valid excuse except maybe that they are so far gone they don't care anymore, or they are illegals.. and as such are not in the system... being IN the system in Germany is critical.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a reasonable position, but you need to convince 50% of the population. My view is a bit more nuanced - I feel it should be the charity of last resort. The government safety net should be pretty far down the list of resources, and the scope and duration of the government should be as limited as possible. Private entities are more efficient and encourage volunteerism, which I feel is more beneficial to society than "I paid my taxes, I've done my part".
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SSDD (Score:4, Insightful)
Yea, I can't imagine why terrorists wouldn't want to target a place where a lot of people are forced to bottle neck....like a security checkpoint....
I mean, nobody would give a shit if a few hundred people got blown up waiting to take their shoes off and walk though a body scanner right?
Re: (Score:3)
> A terrorist who knows he has a 50% chance to be uncovered and spend most of his/her life in jail may prefer to give up
I'm probably responding to a troll, but you realize he also has a 50% chance of not being uncovered and blowing up and dying. Jail is the more pleasant option.
Re:SSDD (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:SSDD (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:SSDD (Score:5, Insightful)
A terrorist who is actually planning to blow himself up anyway would simply do so between the scan and the pat down upon detection—probably diving into the security line to maximize the casualties. The body scanners are thus completely and utterly ineffectual as a deterrent.
More to the point, the terrorists weren't afraid to bring box cutters onto an aircraft; the metal detectors were obviously not a deterrent. Based on that bit of history, what possible reason could you have for believing that this magic tiger-repelling rock will work better than the last one?
Re:SSDD (Score:4, Funny)
Silence!
I keel you!
Re:SSDD (Score:5, Interesting)
At the time of the 9/11/2001 attacks, it was legal to bring a box cutter aboard an airplane.
Another way this security theater is easily bypassed is in the case of liquids. Currently, the TSA will only allow a passenger through the security check with 100ml containers of any given liquid. Want to bring an entire liter of liquid aboard an airplane? Just go through the security checkpoint ten times, each time carrying a single 100ml. You'll have a liter inside security. You could also have ten friends each bring in 100ml and combine it when you get past the security checkpoints. This is all fake. It's all BS masquerading as doing something for the sake of security.
Seth
Re:SSDD (Score:5, Informative)
Untrue. Pocket knives were legal. Box cutters and straight razors have never been allowed as best I can determine. (Source: planesafe.org [planesafe.org])
Besides, there's reason to suspect that they were never taken through security in the first place [cnn.com], making the entire question moot.
By the way, it might be happening again [go.com].
Re: (Score:3)
"Want to bring an entire liter of liquid aboard an airplane? Just go through the security checkpoint ten times, each time carrying a single 100ml."
Just use 2 half liter lens cleaning fluid containers.
Re:SSDD (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a general problem here: we're fixing last-year's problem.
So we had a plane highjacking by people with knives. The hijackers ran the planes into buildings. This is what we're most focused on preventing, but it's not very likely to happen again. First, pilots and passengers are less likely now to allow someone with a knife to take control of a plane. The reason they allowed it before was that it was basically the policy to do so-- they weren't expecting hijackers to use the plane as a missile. We also are more vigilant about keeping an eye on planes in the airspace around population centers, and we'll be more ready to shoot down planes that are too close to downtown NYC and not following their flight plan. 9/11 won't happen again.
And why would they even try? It's much more effective to find some new vector of attack. It increases your chances of success, and it also increases the terror that it causes in the general population. By using various methods, the attacks become unpredictable and encourage the perception that you might get hit anywhere, at any time.
Re:SSDD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SSDD (Score:4, Funny)
Plus, if a terrorist does get though, he might also get cancer.
Test First (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Test First (Score:5, Insightful)
Go back to the old scanners. Try again in a few years with better tech if you actually create some.
Why would you do that when you can sell useless machines now and then sell slightly less useless machines again in a few years?
You seem to be under the impression that the scanners are supposed to achieve something other than enriching the people who make them.
Re:Test First (Score:5, Informative)
You seem to be under the impression that the scanners are supposed to achieve something other than enriching the people who make them.
The one thing I do not understand is why is this happening in so many countries. Is it that easy to get rich everywhere - just make ridiculous, useless, 6-figure machines? In London, there is not even a pat-down option if you are selected (so I am not flying out of there).
And who benefits from the ridiculous 3-ounce liquid rules, besides the vendors inside airports??
Re:Test First (Score:5, Interesting)
The one thing I do not understand is why is this happening in so many countries. Is it that easy to get rich everywhere - just make ridiculous, useless, 6-figure machines? In London, there is not even a pat-down option if you are selected (so I am not flying out of there).
The skill is not in the making of the machines. The skill is in selling them.
And who benefits from the ridiculous 3-ounce liquid rules, besides the vendors inside airports??
The machine vendors, for example. They benefit from the whole fear-mongering that's going on here. Because liquids are forbidden because they're so dangerous, and can not be detected by metal detectors, so you need a machine that can detect them.
Or if you would like to truly enter conspiracy theory terrain: maybe the whole liquid-explosives scare was just a scam. After all not a single plane was blown up. The liquids were not even mixed to explosive yet. They weren't even taken to the airport yet. No they were found in someones home instead! Wasn't this maybe a plot of corrupt government people colluding with naked body scanners?
Re: (Score:3)
And who benefits from the ridiculous 3-ounce liquid rules, besides the vendors inside airports??
While I generally agree with you, I can see the point of the 3 oz rule. It has to do with what in the software world we call "non-functional requirements" -- mainly cost and performance in this instance. While the *functional* requirement of preventing liquid explosives from being smuggled on a plane could be met with a much more lax rule, enforcing that rule in a way that allows many people to be processed fast enough, cheaply enough is a challenge.
So as system designers, how would we write the requiremen
Re:Test First (Score:4, Interesting)
All of which goes out the window when you realize that you can easily bring an unlimited amount on board as long as a) you're willing to separate it into 3oz containers, and b) if you end up with more of them than will fit in a ziplock, you need to bring a friend.
Security is a good thing. Security theater is not.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
And this is why we as the people who understand the technology must take the time to educate the masses about what it can and cannot do. And by that, I mean we have to club them over the head with the harsh reality that these things are no more effective than a dowsing rod at catching real terrorists.
Unfortunately the masses believe that dowsing works, so indoctrinating them that these things works as well as dowsing rods actually makes them believe that these things work.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You seem to be under the impression that the scanners are supposed to achieve something other than enriching the people who make them.
Well, they do. Specifically, they condition the general population to accept such scanning without question. In a few decades, the lack of terrorist attacks will be credited to the machines, and in the interests of public safety they will begin to be placed into our public schools to save the kids from other kids. Eventually you will have to pass through them in any place which now requires a metal detector scan, such as sporting events, courthouses, federal buildings, public libraries, etc.
No, I'm not pull
Re:Test First (Score:5, Interesting)
But there's no need...
Being killed by a terrorist on a plane doesn't even make a damn blip on the ways you're likely to die. It *barely* makes a blip on damages to U.S. infrastructure.
The TSA exists solely because it can, and because people want money. Some people are making a lot of money on all of this nonsense and that's all that matters. This isn't some conspiracy theory or otherwise, just simple economics. There was an opening to make a buck, someone took it and here we are.
9/11 was caused by some box cutters, it could have been just as easily accomplished with nothing (let's face it, people weren't scared of the little knife they were shocked because something threatened them and most modern people are cowards). The (head of the) TSA knows this, they also know there is a lot of money in fear.
Re:Test First (Score:5, Insightful)
Testing would have delayed the goal of making Michael Chertoff more money.
Re:Test First (Score:5, Interesting)
Surprise it took that long (Score:5, Interesting)
The only surprising thing here is that it took so long for such an easy work-around to come to light. It's not that there are very few people working with those scanners on a daily basis, and I bet plenty of TSA front-line personnel will discuss those scanners and how they work with their friends.
Re:Surprise it took that long (Score:5, Funny)
What friends?
Re:Surprise it took that long (Score:5, Insightful)
Even Gestapo officers had friends...if they knew what was good for them.
Re: (Score:3)
The only surprising thing here is that it took so long for such an easy work-around to come to light.
Exactly, come to light. The real terrorists have been doing this for years. And they have some ass kicking to do now, 'cause this little punk revealed the trick.
Re:Surprise it took that long (Score:4, Insightful)
We were pretty sure that there was a problem with metal objects taped to the inside or outside of people's bodies when Adam Savage [arstechnica.com] walked through with two 12" razor blades. This story just provides an explanation of why the scanners don't work.
Re:Surprise it took that long (Score:5, Interesting)
Why long? Two years ago (Jan 2010), a guy in german TV demonstrated [youtube.com] how to get enough stuff past the body scanners to build a thermite bomb, including the lighter. And the body scanner was operated by a service person from the manufacturer during the demonstration.
Re:Surprise it took that long (Score:4)
I bet you can hide serious knives (or other weapons) inside a saxophone. And indeed even very large instruments are routinely carried as cabin luggage.
Re:Surprise it took that long (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah. I was worried about the TSA folks having a cow about my valve oil, so I dutifully packed it in a plastic bag for my first post-9/11 trip with an instrument, wondering if I'd have to dispose of it anyway. I don't think anyone else brought bags, and as far as I could tell, nobody got pulled aside. (I waited around as folks went through just in case I needed to pass somebody a spare plastic bag.)
It's kind of scary to realize (in hindsight) that between the couple of dozen brass players, we probably walked through the TSA checkpoint with between fifty and a hundred fluid ounces of light petroleum distillates (basically kerosene) without comment....
If we had been terrorists, I suspect that the plane would not have reached its destination. It scares the crap out of me to realize that in spite of all their amateur theatrics, we're really not significantly safer than we were before.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's only scary at first. Despite all this, no successful terrorist attack has successfully been carried out on planes for over ten years. Instead of getting rid of an overpriced, useless and redundant mess of an agency, we continue to praise it for stopping terrorists, even to the point of being scared when realizing they didn't actually stop any terrorists.
- "Why a
Re: (Score:3)
It scares the crap out of me to realize that in spite of all their amateur theatrics, we're really not significantly safer than we were before.
Hmm, that's funny. I find it reassuring that despite all the BS that is the TSA and airline security theatre, there hasn't been a successful terrorist attack... Maybe that's just me -- you know, not being afraid of anything, even if I'm aware of it... because I'm an American, "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death"
Don't get scared about this, that implies we should do more useless crap: "OH NO! Something could have happened! Look how easy the sheep could be slaughtered! Put them in isolation crates during
Scanner image hoax (Score:5, Informative)
Images purporting to show what TSA scanners actually get have been demonstrated to be fakes:
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=154635.0 [prisonplanet.com]
Re:Scanner image hoax (Score:5, Interesting)
Any time you see a "scan image" that shows hair of any kind, it's fake.
The radiation penetrates clothing. Why would it not penetrate hair? Indeed, we all look lumpy *and* bald going through the scanner.
It was obvious the first time these images went 'round.
--
BMO
Re:Scanner image hoax (Score:5, Funny)
we all look lumpy *and* bald going through the scanner.
I achieve /that/ look without any expensive technology...
what the tsa will actually do (Score:5, Insightful)
Since obviously a metal detector will detect that sort of thing, the tsa will now buy new millimeter wave/backscatter x-ray scanners with a traditional metal detector integrated into the system. The only reason they're going to give up their toys is because they can get better ones.
Re: (Score:3)
cause they are retarded, going with the old "airbags are a total replacement for seatbelts" way of thinking
I don't care how effective they are. (Score:4, Interesting)
They invade citizens' privacy, and because of that, I think they should be gone.
"For the children," "to stop the terrorists," "ban technology X because of the actions of a few," they're all the same thing. All that's needed is increased cockpit security and citizen awareness. No privacy violations are necessary or even wanted.
Disheartening (Score:4, Interesting)
Delete the last to words of the sub title (Score:4, Insightful)
yup (Score:5, Interesting)
I was part of a team bringing forward a competing technology to those scanners (standoff biometrics, no weird imaging, ~5 different measurements, easy to beat one, hard to beat them all). We thought we had won the tests. At least, we found all the people sneaking stuff in during our test and we knew they couldn't have detected certain things - like explosives, which they still can't see.
Due to the nature of my sensor work, much of my clothing is covered in explosives residue. A good scanner should really pick me out every time, but I only ever get "caught" when I'm selected for random screening.
We were pretty surprised when we found out they were selected. I guess we should have worked harder on our lobbying and less on our engineering.
Re:yup (Score:4, Interesting)
do you have a proven track record of being able to produce 100 000 units? What's your typical cost/cost overun on a project that size?
Business is business. Engineering is part of business, but if you're advertising the greatest thing ever for 100 dollars that is supposedly 10x than what everyone else is selling for 1000 people are rightfully skeptical that you can actually deliver the product on time, and on budget. That doesn't mean you can't, and yes in any business advertising (or in the case of the US government lobbying) matters tremendously, but there can be non obvious factors at play.
As with anything you might really have been trumped by 'strategic concerns' (you weren't going to create enough jobs, in the right districts, or pay the right campaign kickbacks), but you might have just not seemed honest, being the only honest one in a room full of crooks.
TSA is an expense account scam (Score:5, Interesting)
The inquisition (yes, that one [malleusmaleficarum.org]) was an expense account scam. Since the accused was required to pay for their own inquisition, the system simply padded the expenses to the limit of the available money.
The TSA is the same thing. People wail and moan about how stupid/intrusive/incompetent/useless they are, and miss the larger picture.
The TSA sends money to corporations, and the corporations grease the political wheels.
There's no rocket science, no ulterior motive, nothing else to consider. Like the inquisition, the TSA doesn't need to justify expenditures with usefulness or effectiveness. The more they spend, the more they get to spend. Cause and effect.
Why do you think they spend billions on technology, but pay only slightly above the minimum wage and spend so little on training?
People keep grousing about the TSA as if that will make a difference. It won't. They have been generally incompetent from the start, and there's nothing that people can do to unseat them from their position.
Voting hasn't helped. Contacting representatives hasn't helped. Complaining to the TSA or their employees hasn't helped. Legal action hasn't helped.
There's one obvious remaining course of action we can take to rein in all the government waste and corruption. Can anyone think of things to try before we take that last drastic step? I'm out of ideas...
Re:TSA is an expense account scam (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but you're not going to like it. It involves people like you banding together to run for office, then passing laws banning all non-medical use of X-ray or millimeter wave imaging within the bounds of your community or state. If every state did this, the TSA and the companies it supports would eventually wither and die on the vine. Even if they started overturning the laws in the supreme court, after about the twentieth state passed such a law, they'd have their hands full in court for decades—a big enough money sink that it just might be enough to extricate their crania from their recta.
Remember: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Soap hasn't worked. Jury hasn't worked. Yet we as a society seem to have skipped over the most important one on our way to the fourth. Never forget the second.
Re:TSA is an expense account scam (Score:5, Insightful)
There's something missing from your prescription: Ensuring that the new laws that get passed actually get enforced.
That is unfortunately not a minor issue. For instance, Massey Coal has routinely violated laws on mine safety for decades, and donated heavily to the campaigns of the state prosecutors and judges to prevent those laws from ever being enforced - it took the bad press of the Upper Big Branch deaths to put the CEO (who had specifically told his subordinates to break the law) on trial. Similarly, Goldman Sachs probably (although they've never admitted it in court, they're willing to settle the case) committed fraud worth billions, and is going to be let off with paying a fine that's a fraction of the revenue they received for the fraud. And Dick Cheney told the world he committed war crimes (specifically, he ordered torture of prisoners, using the definitions of torture the US used after WW II) on national television, and is still free.
Re: (Score:3)
Voting hasn't helped. Contacting representatives hasn't helped.
You are an example of the problem. There have only been five Congressional elections and two Presidential elections since the TSA was established. In the first two Congressional elections and the first Presidential election, reining in/getting rid of the TSA was not even one of the issues on the table. Even in the last Congessional election and in the OWS protests, the TSA has not been a significant part of the issues people were concerned about. If you want to fix this, you need to make people aware of the
Security theatre (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems obvious to me that the TSA knew the machines didn't work effectively, but that this didn't matter to them. Airport security isn't about making the skies safer, it's about scaring (some would even say terrorising) the public in order to give the government more power and control. In his video he even says that there was no threat with the old metal detectors...
There are so many ways one could commit an act of terrorism at an airport without getting on a plane if one were so inclined (I'm not, by the way!) and every time I fly I see more. The full body scanners do nothing to increase a person's safety.
Let's face it - the terrorists have won. The public are terrified. Sadly it's their own governments which have done the terrorising.
Re:Security theatre (Score:5, Insightful)
There are so many ways one could commit an act of terrorism at an airport without getting on a plane if one were so inclined (I'm not, by the way!) and every time I fly I see more.
The fact that you and others here feel the need to add disclaimers like "(I'm not, by the way!)" says a lot about the oppressiveness of the current regime. People are constantly aware that their comments may be monitored and there may be implications to speaking the truth.
I think I've heard this story before somewhere...
Not only ineffective, but not proven safe (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm glad the EU has declared backscatter X-ray scanners to be illegal to use in European airports. I work in a radiation industry and know a considerable amount about X-ray physics and medical imaging, and these scanners should never have been taken into use for public screening.
I love going through the US airports and requesting a manual search when they try to put me through the backscatter machines. They always make a big drama over it, but I explain that I work in a radiation industry and I will not subject myself to additional radiation given a choice. Backscatter machines fall into this category, and so far I have not been through a single one. If they try to force me to go through one or not pass the security checkpoint, I will take it all the way to the top if needed. I will not tolerate being scanned by a backscatter machine, nor should anyone else. It's not been proven safe for human use or effective at increasing security.
And let's not even get started about the fact that the TSA have been caught multiple times storing images from the backscatter and millimeter wave machines, when they say publicly that the images are not saved. There is a reason why they earned the nickname, pr0n scanner. There is no valid reason to save the images after you pass screening, unless they are simply playing the CYA game. This should not be allowed.
Note, the backscatter machines are far different than the millimeter wave scanners used in some airports. Millimeter wave is known to be safe. Backscatter is NOT and should never be used on the public.
Re:Not only ineffective, but not proven safe (Score:4, Informative)
TSA safe (Score:4, Insightful)
If I needed a firearm on an airplane, I would probably use the 33 gram CO2 cartridges from the life vest conveniently located under my seat. Put it in a fitting pipe, and all you need is a crude firing device to pierce the seal - blunt force will do.
The TSA lines are there for your illusion of safety. Your real safety lies in the fact that it is rather unusual for people to conspire to kill a plane full of people, themselves included.
Easy fix (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious (Score:4, Informative)
How many guns were smuggled onto planes as part of 9/11 again? You could easily conceal a weapon in a tin that size.
His point is that a metal detector would've actually detected that tin, and allowed them to inspect the contents to see if contained something that might be used as a weapon, with much less impact on his privacy.
Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
just look at /. discussions about self-driving cars, if you don't believe me
Funny you should bring that up, it's actually been bugging me for a while. Most of the comments on those posts seem to either claim that it's an impossible engineering problem to solve, or that it creates legal/social problems that are impossible to solve (e.g. "just wait until one of these crashes, the resulting lawsuit will bring down all technology-related companies in the world and thrust us back to the bronze age and give everyone AIDS." I'm exaggerating only slightly...). What's up with that? I though
Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
1) If self driving cars are proven to improve safety, all else being equal it's irresponsible to resist using them purely for the sake of personal enjoyment.
The thing is, all else will not be equal. Whatever makes the car a "self-driving car" will increase the cost of production. THis is actually an overall problem we have in this country (and probably in all developed nations). There is to much, "but this makes it safer" without enough analysis of the costs involved. For example, I do not think we have done enough analysis as to whether or not airbags are worth the total cost. While people have considered the cost of initially installing airbags as part of man
Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Frost Piss (Score:5, Funny)
I heard you can hide a gun in a Fleshlight and it'll get through.
Yeah. Duh. Who wants to actually inspect the inside of one of those? Do you want the job?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm not sure flying solo counts.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want it back after it's spent 8 hours soaking up your brother in law's flap-sweat.