TSA To Make Pat-Downs More Embarrassing To Encourage Scanner Use 642
Jeffrey Goldberg writes for the Atlantic about his recent experiences with opting out of the back-scatter full-body scanners now being used to screen airport travelers. Passengers can choose to submit to a pat-down instead of going through the scanners, but according to one of the TSA employees Goldberg talked to, the rules for those are soon changing to make things more uncomfortable for opt-outs, while not doing much for actual security. He writes, 'The pat-down, while more effective than previous pat-downs, will not stop dedicated and clever terrorists from smuggling on board small weapons or explosives. When I served as a military policeman in an Israeli army prison, many of the prisoners 'bangled' contraband up their a**es. I know this not because I checked, but because eventually they told me this when I asked. ... the effectiveness of pat-downs does not matter very much, because the obvious goal of the TSA is to make the pat-down embarrassing enough for the average passenger that the vast majority of people will choose high-tech humiliation over the low-tech ball check."
first pat (Score:4, Funny)
first pat
Wanna check my balls? (Score:5, Insightful)
Go ahead.
You might want to have a think about who's really being humiliated in this situation though. I don't think it's me.
Re:Wanna check my balls? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm lactose intolerant. I'll be sure to drink a glass of milk with my garlic eggs in the morning and make the experience a real unpleasant one for them. "Oops, sorry, when you hit the 'resistance' it caused me to jump and I let some gas out."
Believe me, the TSA employees will revolt against upper management if enough people fart in their face all fucking day long. You want to play fucking games, we'll play them right back.
Re:Wanna check my balls? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm lactose intolerant. I'll be sure to drink a glass of milk with my garlic eggs in the morning and make the experience a real unpleasant one for them. "Oops, sorry, when you hit the 'resistance' it caused me to jump and I let some gas out."
Believe me, the TSA employees will revolt against upper management if enough people fart in their face all fucking day long. You want to play fucking games, we'll play them right back.
And then you'll be charged with battery. [foxnews.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I pity their inspectors. Let's let them know how much sexual gratification we're getting from all of this. If this doesn't revile them, then we're we're making them an accessory.
There is a ceiling to how much is enough. I think they've reached it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wanna check my balls? (Score:5, Funny)
Turned out that he had been given a grilling by the Customs goons, and they had strip-searched him. However, one of them took just a sniff of his shoes, looked at his colleague and said "if that's what these things smell like, there's no way I'm looking up this guy's ass".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hi, i see that you live in Perth, i am going there for christmas and would like to know what are the best computer stores, cellphone stores and such, can i contact you by email? I don't see a place in your profile to do that. My gmail address is fj-leon without the dash. Thanks
Erection (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Erection (Score:5, Funny)
If I say I'm gay can I insist on having a female TSA hottie?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
LOL, Faux News was linked as proof that a story is real. National Enquirer gets more stories right than Faux News do.
Believe it or not, it was the least sensationalist of the pages I could find covering the story. Most of them were titled like "Man Arrested for FART! ROFLMAO! *RASPBERRY*", even on slightly more respected news sites.
BTW, it's hard to get arrest records wrong, since they're written down and easy for press to obtain. The rest of the story is that the prosecutor dropped the charges [msn.com] but it's something to think about; TSA guards might "think" you're trying to blanket the terminal with a gas-bomb and tazer y
Re:Wanna check my balls? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Oh yes... touch me there. Yes that's the spot. You know you're really cute. Ever tried being gay Mr Security Guy?"
Re:Wanna check my balls? (Score:5, Interesting)
That should accompany every search.
Re:Wanna check my balls? (Score:4, Insightful)
That doesn't work on people with IQs below 80 (ie. the people who'll be doing it to you)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wanna check my balls? (Score:5, Funny)
No doubt there's some secret law saying you're not allowed to enjoy your ball check.
Re:Wanna check my balls? (Score:5, Funny)
That's un-Amurican.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Many of the people working for TSA are not rocket scientists, granted, and many are genuinely below average IQ (and many above) but their main objective is to protect their job and paycheck, NOT to insure safety. That would be true of most any normal person who hasn't been through the reconditioning training that the military offers (and police/firemen/paramilitary to a lesser degree).
My experience has been that most TSA agents are fairly normal, friendly people. The minority that act like jackbooted thug
Re:Wanna check my balls? (Score:4, Informative)
I had a dispute with some GB airport security (actually with Group 4 staff, a company the govt ofter outsources essential state duties to, like guarding prisoners, and at which G4 have got a pretty poor record of actually succeeding). As a result I ended up repeatedly leaving the secure area and having to be searched again on entry - I did remark to the guy doing it "We're getting to know each other quite well, aren't we?" but he didn't seem to see the funny side. I suspect the OP's comment about humiliation was pretty close to the mark on that one...
Re:Wanna check my balls? (Score:5, Funny)
Those who would give up essential liberty for a little ball rubbing action, deserve neither.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Those who would give up essential liberty for a little ball rubbing action, deserve neither."
Submission, frottage, AND denial?
I, for one, find the idea vaguely arousing.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Wanna check my balls? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wanna check my balls? (Score:5, Interesting)
In the end the tsa guy was so uncomfortable he only went mid-way up the thigh. Make it more invasive for tsa? Yeah, that's a good idea.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Cough, please ... (Score:4, Funny)
Also in the news:
Nobody will ever use the scanner in San Francisco.
Re:Cough, please ... (Score:5, Interesting)
When the intent is to touch the genitals, then is the intent to search or commit a sexual assault. At what stage when committing sexual assault is a search warrant required.
At least everyone is likely to have the last laugh on the TSA, how well are they shielded from the continually exposure to tumour inducing xrays. Of course there will always be people to protect idiots from their own ignorance http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/ [epic.org].
With regards to limits on ionising radiation "the maximum exposure to ionising radiation shall not be more than 1 mSv34 per year for members of the public and 20 mSv per year for exposed workers", what steps are the TSA taking to ensure they are not exceeding mandated limits. One would assume questionnaires are being handed out with risk warnings and notifications for people at risk or do they just no think they will be held legally liable for failing to take due care, especially with children.
How about all operational personal, flight crews, cleaners luggage handlers and TSA agents, are they also required to be scanned when entering areas of higher security risk.
Re:Wanna check my balls? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wanna check my balls? (Score:5, Insightful)
What if that female TSA agent turns out to be Rosie O'Donnell? You really want to take that chance?
This is /. As long as she isn't the woman living upstairs, she's a keeper.
Re:Wanna check my balls? (Score:4, Insightful)
doesn't make sense (Score:5, Insightful)
How exactly does this make us anymore secure? If a terrorist could exploit a loophole in the pat down procedure, then he wouldn't care whether it was anymore embarrassing.
Re:doesn't make sense (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd almost think it wasn't about terrorism.
It's about obedience (Score:5, Insightful)
You need to be trained to accept government intrusion into your personal space, do whatever they tell you to.
If you'll let them feel you up in public then letting them scan your email will seem like no big deal.
Re:It's about obedience (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad thing is that in 7 to 10 years, nobody will even care... People will just accept this as completely normal. What scares me is what will make people uncomfortable then? People will be indignant that TSA employees are allowed to shoot anyone who looks at them funny on the spot? Then it's another 7 to 10 years of easing the measure onto the sheep as part of their everyday life...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No they won't. First the lackeys will just take it out on the travellers (as they're already doing, judging from TFA). And if they eventually get sick of it and quit, the TSA will find new lackeys. It's hardly the worst job to be found in most cities, so there will always be a supply of people willing to get in out of the weather, stop doing physical labor, and/or get away from hazardous/noxious materials.
Re:It's about obedience (Score:5, Interesting)
I would be okay with it under the following conditions:
Until then, you're massively invading my privacy without doing a damn thing to stop terrorism---something that should not be acceptable to anyone sensible. I guarantee you that this bullshit will stop the first time somebody releases a "Girls Gone Wild TSA Style" video showing a bunch of goons sitting around watching nude X-ray pics of hot women who walked through the scanners. And statistically speaking, it's only a matter of time before this happens and it turns into a public outcry the likes of which the government has not seen since Vietnam.
Re:It's about obedience (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a factual yet minuscule threat, and the response is way out of proportion.
It's like we're allergic to terrorists.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I could almost agree with that IF and ONLY IF they got rid of the no-fly list. If body scans are mandatory, then there's no flight risk from the people on that list who should actually be on it, much less those whose names ended up there accidentally or for political reasons.
Re:It's about obedience (Score:4, Informative)
The amazing thing is people get worked up about the summery, but nowhere is it written that the "more embarrassing pat-down" is actually a TSA directive. It is the opinion of one employee that the writer talked to. As far as we know, it might be that it is really a more effective pat-down intended to be more useful at finding weapons/bombs on those who refuse the scanners.
I'm not saying I am that naive, but OTOH, getting all worked up over the opinion of one TSA employee, without even the TSA's response...
Re:doesn't make sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a hypothesis:
The data from these "backscatter" x-ray devices can be used to uniquely-identify people. (perhaps by body shape, or even one's stride/gate?) US intelligence authorities want to collect a variety of such biometric data, from as many people as possible.
Re:doesn't make sense (Score:4, Insightful)
The fewer rights we have, the more secure we are! Eliminating privacy will surely protect us from those evil terrorists!
Re:doesn't make sense (Score:5, Informative)
I looked in to this when my family and I went to Cancun, Mexico. A small jet started at $3,000 per flight hour so our trip would have cost at least $12,000. The company also said that if you stay long enough at your destination, you will get charged for 2 round trips. We opted instead to spend $2,000 for round-trip tickets on American Airlines.
Re:doesn't make sense (Score:4, Informative)
You think 24-36 hours is almost as fast as flying? Southwest, know for always having to stop somewhere, can get you from Albany, NY to Ontario, CA in 9-11 hours. American can go JFK to LAX in 6 hours. Add in arriving 2 hours ahead of time and it is still 3 times faster than driving. On a good day, you'll get there tomorrow while I'll get there today and have dinner, a night on the town, a good night's rest, a good breakfast, a productive day, and then greet you as you arrive after you've dealt with countless idiots that may or may not be trying to ru you off the road.
Re:doesn't make sense (Score:5, Interesting)
I can make it across the US in 24-36 hours if there's no really bad weather.
No, you can't. Best case, you're looking at around 48 hours, assuming you don't sleep: two days of straight travel.
Realistically, you're looking at 3 or maybe even 4 days of travel: sleeping, resting, stretching your legs and eating all take time (losing you about 8-10 hours a day). This number is a little higher if you've got children to contend with (more food and exercise requirements).
If you've got a week+ to burn and don't mind driving, go ahead. A couple years ago I drove from the Black Hills to upstate NY (and then back again a month later). I was unemployed, so the trip was tenable due to not having any time obligations, and it was slightly cheaper than 4 plane tickets (even after a small collision with a deer). However, it took almost 3 days (1800 miles), and that was traveling at around 85mph for most of the trip.
However, for any distance under (say) 600 miles or so, I'd agree: drive. It actually is quicker, and is substantially cheaper without the hassle. An hour to the airport, 1-3 hours waiting, an hour or so in transit, and another hour to get your bags, rental, etc. and then another 30 minutes to 2 hours to your actual destination. Anywhere on the seaboards, I'd say "just drive".
Anything up to 12 hours of driving is, IMO, acceptable at this point - even for a single person. I'd love to get a small turbo diesel van to make these trips pleasant and (even less) inexpensive for me and my family.
Pat down, or molest? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The pat down stops all those nasty terrorists, of course! It's also done by people you can definitely trust.
Re:Pat down, or molest? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pat down, or molest? (Score:4, Insightful)
"I wonder what future generations will say about our obsession with security in years to come?"
If people keep putting up with it, they'll probably be in the same situation we are.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
depends on what the govt will let them say.
Re:Pat down, or molest? (Score:5, Informative)
We theorize that the TSA people look for bags with goodies, "inspect" them and if they find something worth stealing they make a small cut on the bag. Then they give the bag to someone else who then proceeds to take it to a place without cameras, grabs the goodies and then sends the bag through.
The TSA repeatedly claimed that since they "screen" their employees and that their employees don't steal. Bullshit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't fly with a valuable laptop without theft recovery technology, period. This is what netbooks are for... or lojack
Re:Pat down, or molest? (Score:5, Interesting)
Always check a firearm--and make sure the case for the firearm is capable of holding your valuables. Cameras, computers, whatever. It's perfectly legal, and usually easy enough. Use a throw-away pistol if you don't want to risk loosing fancy guns.
And, unlike standard baggage, you have to use a lock and case THEY can't open... And if they want to see the contents, by their own regulations YOU have to be present! Make sure your cell # is plastered all over the case.
If someone (TSA, airport, whoever) ever lost or stole a checked in case containing a gun... Well, let's just say there's no surer or quicker way to see their representatives collectively crap their pants.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If I understand correctly, a blank-firing starter pistol also qualifies for this restriction.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
actually i am just tired of airline prices
While you might be experiencing a moderate fare bump right now, historically fares have never been cheaper.
50 years ago or so it would have cost about $300 to fly transcon - Nearly $2400 in todays's dollars. Today you can fly from New York to LA for under $500.
Here's some more recent examples:
In 1990 I flew from Vancouver to London... It was my first big backpacking trip after university. I remember the fare was around $950 - Around $1540 in today's doll
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which will almost certainly culminate in a ruling which essentially says "Airports are different to other parts of the world and the TSA can essentially invent their own law there, and if their law says they can gently fondle your bollocks with one hand while jacking off with the other, so be it".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you may have just hit upon the legal definition of "unstoppable force meets immovable object".
Maybe a solution? (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe a solution to this panic-stricken theater would be to start requiring all passengers coming off a US flight to go through the same mess as those arriving in the US. Especially those who are government employees. And make sure they are told "this policy will remain in place until the US once again starts behaving like a civilized country".
Maybe with the addendum that "All travelers arriving from countries who have not signed the ICC treaty must be strip-searched and quarantined for 48 hours on arrival, before passport check is done." (this would include those arriving on diplomatic passports). Countries who do not accept international laws have no business sending people outside their own borders, period.
Re:Maybe a solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Maybe a solution? (Score:4, Insightful)
That would be so awesome if true. It just sounds too good to be.
I see. So America should not be able to penalize the citizens of other countries for the things their governments do, but other countries should be allowed to penalize our citizens for the things our government does.
Yep. Hypocrisy is still very much alive on Slashdot.
This isn't really penalizing someone. Unlike the US, apparently they aren't even keeping the fingerprints in a database. They're tearing it up and throwing it away right in front of you. Sounds more like a way to bring awareness to the behavior of their government to the citizens. After all, we are a democracy, and we get some say in what our government does, do we not?
Re:Maybe a solution? (Score:5, Informative)
Doesn't matter. Even if it's your own plane, and you are the only one going to fly it, you still have to obey the rules.
You never know, you might hijack yourself with that pocket knife!
NOTICE: An actual, real, does-this-for-a-living pilot as told me this. This isn't some assumption on my part.
He told you wrong. If you aren't going through the secured terminal (which 99.9% of private flights don't), then you don't need security screening. I am an actual, real, living pilot and I've flown through over 250 airports large and small in the USA on private flights. O'Hare is the only one I've seen that actually has even a metal detector for private flights... I walk through, it beeps (because of my pocket knife, flashlight, keys, etc. on my person) and they wave me on through.
Re:Maybe a solution? (Score:5, Informative)
Of course not, but there are several bits that are very nearly global. For example, every UN member apart from the USA and Somalia has ratified the UNCRC.
Somalia hasn't got around to it due to lacking a functioning government. Everyone else signed it in the 90s. Prior to 2005, the USA's major objection was that it would prevent them from executing children. That is failure to accept international law.
Re:Maybe a solution? (Score:4, Informative)
If the US Supreme Court has the authority to suspend the death penalty on the basis of its unconstitutionally arbitrary imposition, as the court did in 1972, it would follow that the federal government has the authority to set limits to the use of the death penalty.
So now there's a choice... (Score:2)
... between indecent assault, and being irradiated with dangerous levels of microwave and X-rays?
Oh well, it's not like I can't drive anywhere I'd otherwise fly to.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
have fun in Hawaii
If i was a terrorist... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd STILL be cheering after all these years...
Look what we're doing to ourselves... We've done more damage to our country than the terrorists ever could have hoped to do directly...
We proved it.. Terrorisim works! And works fuckin awesome too! Not directly.. But the whole country losing its fucking mind, wasting BILLIONS, is sure a huge victory for the terrorists.
Way to go my fellow sheeple americans. Fuckin ijits.
Wrong target! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrong target! (Score:5, Insightful)
Average terrorists don't blow up planes either. There are too many more readily-available targets that don't require putting up with a lot of boring security theatre.
Any Wal-Mart would do for a start. They're everywhere, they're essentially unguarded, and each one has a few thousand people and a whole bunch of combustables all in one handy place.
Wait, I don't see ay Wal-Marts blowing up... maybe the true answer is that there aren't actually enough terrorists to be worth worrying about, hmmm??
I continue to find it appalling... (Score:5, Insightful)
...that you people continue to put up with this crap.
Re:I continue to find it appalling... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...that you people continue to put up with this crap.
I agree, it is appalling.
So what's the alternative? We've tried to vote the idiots out, but we got even worse idiots in their place. (The Douche vs. a Turd paradigm is entirely too close to reality.)
Some of us have stopped flying when we can (work requirements make this somewhat difficult). I drove 3600 miles (5700 odd km) two years ago to visit family so I could avoid the security theater. I don't need that kind of violation in my life, thanks: I'd rather be inconvenienced and pay more, and I'm not going
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And again the rest of the world finds it appalling you only have two parties to choose from.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're wrong. We only have one party to choose from, and that was by design.
I've noticed that regardless of who gets voted in, that my rights keep disappearing, corporate american gets to keep raping me, and my tax dollars are used to bail out those companies and provide million dollar catered parties to the douchenozzles that tanked our economy in the first place with their greed.
This is reasonable (Score:4, Funny)
But I expect a refund if the plane blows up. Is that fair?
ALWAYS REFUSE THE SCANNER (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:ALWAYS REFUSE THE SCANNER (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck that shit. I'm not letting a bunch of college drop outs take me anywhere out of the sight of the rest of the public.
TSA the problem, not the solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone else starting to see the TSA as a bigger problem than actual terrorists?
Not sure about the solution but what we have is dysfunctional. We know we can't count on the airlines to run airport security. But TSA is starting to treat the flying public like some inconvenience while doing little to thwart actual terrorists.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Anyone else starting to see the TSA as a bigger problem than actual terrorists?
No, I see the TSA as the actual terrorists. They're the ones scaring people and grabbing their nuts.
Re:TSA the problem, not the solution (Score:5, Insightful)
You're always going to have terrorism as long as folks are willing to do that sort of thing, but when the likelihood of a plane going down due to terrorism is less likely than it going down due to either mechanical failure or pilot error, you have to wonder why we're putting up with the extra security measures.
Re:TSA the problem, not the solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone else starting to see the TSA as a bigger problem than actual terrorists?
The TSA is the terrorists' success. They've forced us to waste billions, reduce our freedoms and even give up our personal dignity.
Re:TSA the problem, not the solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh absolutely! It costs the US tens of billions of dollars every year in lost tourism/business revenues to maintain the security theater.
It cost the USA my business.
I fly from London -> New Zealand via LAX once or twice a year, I often used to stop over for up to a week in the US on the way and head up to vegas, or do some skiing. Now I always go via Hong Kong even tho its a longer flight just to avoid the 'bullshit'. I suspect many others avoid the US for the same reason.
Lucky for the US it doesn't need those tourism jobs with its low low rates of unemployment eh?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It is time to find another solution (Score:3, Funny)
Whether it is sanctioned sexual molestation ( pat downs ) or getting nuked with scanner radiation Americans didn't cause this problem and we do deserve to be treated this way. It is time to find another solution.
A start might be to make the scanning more palatable by hiring higher caliber people for security and giving them training in how to act and be more mature about the process. Their behavior and comments started many of the objections with scanning.
Think of the children! (Score:4, Insightful)
Three Magic Words: "Hostile Work Environment" (Score:5, Interesting)
Does your job require you to travel cross-country?
If so, your employer, as part of your work function is forcing you to subject yourself to either [a] "being seen naked by a stranger", or [b] "being groped by a stranger".
Either way, it seems like a perfect test-case for a sexual-harassment lawsuit. There are alternate forms of transportation that don't require being forced to make the decision above (if speed is important, you spend more money and charter a jet, if thrift is important, you spend more time and take a train). So if your employer requires that you fly commercial, it seems that you have an excellent cause of action under existing Sexual Harassment law.
Bonus points if you actually work for the gov't so you can avoid suing someone who didn't have a lot of say in the rules in the first place.
Precedence for this (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sounds like something you should cry out just as the TSA dude's hands touch your jewels.
Random facts (Score:4, Informative)
This article [cbslocal.com] is the one linked to from Drudge. I find it interesting that it reports most people at LaGuardia were willing to go through the TSA security because the 'alternative' is worse (plane blowed up). I queried my friends and acquaintances this past week and not one of them feels these security measures are necessary and many are changing travel plans around which airports have the scanners.
"I don't know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747,"— Rafi Sela, leading Israeli airport security expert, referring to Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion International Airport, which has some of the toughest security in the world. source [cracked.com]
It won't change until... (Score:5, Insightful)
This won't get any better until you require everyone who flies to go through it. None of the private aircraft passengers are required to endure this, nor are any legislators. That means that everyone with power, and everyone who controls power, are exempt.
Until that changes, expect airport "security" to get more annoying.
One more recourse (Score:5, Informative)
If the TSA wants to make your pat down more humiliating, you have a chance to be even more of a pain in the ass: demand a private screening. It is well within your individual rights to do so. Furthermore, demand that a video camera document the screening so if something untoward happens, you have legal recourse. You have to remember that the TSA are just "security guards" with no more real authority than a civilian. The only TSA employees with real power are the Criminal Investigators (also known as an 1811 after the GS-1811 pay grade.) I have no problem giving an 1811 the respect they deserve, I have friends that are 1811's and they epitomise professional, honest civil servants. They go to rigorous training, have strong formally educated backgrounds in law, science, and procedure.
If your rights are denied and you miss the plane as a result, you do have more than a fighting chance. The ACLU is known to rabidly hate the TSA and itches for a chance to whittle away at their undeserved power. However, when I say be a pain in the ass, I mean be polite but firm and stand your ground. You need to appear like you are the better, more responsible person in the interaction. Don't allow yourselves to be bullied by a screener and don't be afraid to call out a potential abuse. Most importantly, know your rights! You do not have to submit to a body scan. I work in an airport and if I got this x-ray scan every time I pass through security, I might get slow radiation poisoning over several a career.
TSA and abuse of power (Score:3, Interesting)
We actually traced the I.P. back to the Port of Seattle!
Unfortunately, one of our moderators thought he was doing the right thing by deleting it when we should have preserved those messages as evidence.
Recent experience at IND (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Recent experience at IND (Score:4, Informative)
back of the hand is the old
Re: (Score:3)
While in principle I agree with you, they don't care if you think you're "wasting" their time. The TSA has all the time in the world, and absolutely zero incentive to speed things up. You, on the other hand, have a plane to catch. We already have to be at the airport 1+ hours before our flight. The TSA people aren't going anywhere. You are.
Are they going to be replaced by a competitor who can do it better when their contract is up? Oh right, they're a government monopoly. No competition, no incentive
In other news (Score:5, Informative)
How's the crackdown on TSA employees who steal from baggage [google.com] coming along? Oh, there isn't one.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Are you implying the US Gov't would run false flag [wikipedia.org] operations? That would never happen, sir, and I challenge you to retract your implication or back it up with facts. :)
(sarcasm, for the impaired)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why would that surprise you? Shipped cargo isn't inspected at all. (Well, except once it lands at customs)
This is because, it's totally impossible for a bomb to be in shipped cargo and...wait, no...
This is because inspecting cargo before shipping would not be visible to the American people, nor would it involve herding them around like cattle so they accept whatever you choose to do to them without warrants, like sexually molest them.
And hence there's no spending money on that part of security theater.
I
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have serious doubts that Al Qaeda - at least, as portrayed by the media - exists.
I believe there are fundamentalist factions that want nothing less than to return civilisation to the fourteenth century and will blow things up to achieve it. But I think they're rare and consist of independent groups of nutters - occasionally one of those groups succeeds in causing harm, usually it fails miserably. I mean really, what sort of moron ships a printer full of explosives from an arabic country to a synagogue i
Re:Body Cavity Search (Score:5, Insightful)
When I was training to become an EMT, we had a whole unit on terrorism. As emergency personnel, we of course are front-line in an attack, but also, we tend to get access to people's homes and such. Since we're not police, we tend to get welcomed inside even if somebody's building bombs or running a meth lab. We're trained on what to look for, and so on.
Anyway, long story short, the terrorism expert asks us that hypothetically, if we had $500 and a desire to cause as much damage and chaos as possible, with no regard for our own lives, how much damage we could cause. He gave us only a minute or so to think about it, and if you yourself think about it now, the damage would be significant. Then he says that terrorists are much, much more motivated, better funded, and spend all of their time, day and night, figuring out how to kill us.
It's a scary prospect, but the moral of the story is that any security measures can be beaten, no matter how extreme. As far as I'm concerned, hijacking is now impossible. That happened as soon as we locked and reinforced the doors, things any forward-thinking airline should have done before 9/11. Blowing up a plane seems unlikely as well, but not for the reasons of TSA's latest measures. Think about the times terrorists have tried, since 9/11. What happened? Security failed to recognize a threat, so the other passengers subdued the terrorist and prevented the bomb from going off.
What was the government's response to this? Increase security for last-week's threat, rather than attempt to figure out what might be the next threat. No real praise for the alert general public, just lots of fear-inducing "the government needs to do more!" calls from the media and government leaders.
What I learned as an EMT is that government is not the answer, an alert public is. Like the smoking SUV in Times Square, a street vendor stopped a terrorist attack. Passengers on airplanes have stopped terrorist attacks several times. Government should worry more about identifying these people before they get to the US, and uncovering plots among those terrorists already here.
Two things are absolutely critical for the government and general public to realize. One, that terrorist attacks will occasionally happen, and no amount of security will protect us from a sufficiently determined murderer. Anyone who promises no more attacks can happen is flat-out lying. Two, the best defense from terrorism is in rapid reactions from whoever happens to be there when an attack gets underway, either to stop it, or contain the level of mayhem.
Hopefully people out there, and not just those who read slashdot, come to accept the above two facts, and government changes to reflect that.