TSA Defending Its Groin Grabbing Or Naked Image Security Techniques
from the so-next-we'll-have-someone-blow-up-the-airport dept
Following all the negative publicity about the TSA's scanning techniques, the TSA is now going all out to defend its practices. First, while announcing that it has started investigating the "don't touch my junk" case in San Diego, the TSA seems to be standing by its position, telling a reporter:"What he's done, he’s violated federal law and federal regulations which states once you enter and start the process you have to complete it."On its own blog, the TSA's pseudonymous blogger "Bob" has also defended both the procedure and the potential for a fine for backing out of the search:
AIT is optional for everybody. However, if you decide to opt-out of AIT screening, you must undergo alternative screening, which will include a pat-down. As I've said before, there is nothing punitive about it- it just makes good security sense. Obviously a passenger can't completely opt out of all screening if they opt out of AIT. That would not make good security sense. AIT is deployed to help us find non-metallic threats, so if you'e selected for AIT and choose to opt-out, we still need to check you for non-metallic threats. That's why a pat-down is required. If you refuse both, you can't fly. It is important that all screening procedures are completed. This ensures that terrorists do not have an opportunity to probe TSA's procedures by electing not to fly just as TSA's screening procedures are on the verge of detecting that the passenger is a terrorist.This sounds logical for about half a second until you actually think about it (apparently the TSA is figuring you won't). That's because it's still letting most people in airports just go through the metal scanner. So, claiming that "all screening procedures" must be completed for all passengers is simply false. For the vast majority of passengers, they just go through the metal detector and are never screened for non-metallic items, contrary to the TSA's claims here.
As for that final claim, it's almost as if the TSA doesn't even think through the logical next steps. Let's say you're a terrorist with explosive underwear (the threat we're told this is designed to stop). You get selected for the backscatter naked scan, and refuse. Then you know you're about to be searched and you can't back out. What do you do? Your options are to get caught and arrested... or to blow the airport sky high right there with all the people around you. Which do you think is more likely?
The latest is that this debate has moved onto Congress, with Senator Lieberman asking a bunch of softball questions to TSA administrator John Pistole, where Pistole insists these techniques will actually help terrorist threats:
What I am concerned about, and I know many share this concern, is if we have an individuals who opts out of the advanced imaging technology--let's say Abdulmutallab had done that, if that had been the case in (inaudible). If he had opted out, thinking that, well, I'm not going to receive a thorough pat-down, so I can get on that flight, and if that had been successful on Christmas Day, I think we might be having a different dialogue here this afternoon and in the public.Ok, let's just be clear here. Abdulmutallab -- last year's underwear bomber -- was successful in getting on the plane. What stopped him was not TSA security, but passengers on the plane seeing what he was up to. That brings up a separate question. Has the TSA ever caught anyone with a bomb with these procedures, ever? Security theater doesn't make people safer.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: backscatter scans, privacy, tsa
Companies: tsa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Acceptable risk
The TSA {IMHO} considers that as acceptable risk. In the corporate view lives are cheap, planes aren't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Acceptable risk
honestly, i'm a bit surprised that that hasn't been attempted already (though i seem to remember some reporting about an abandoned u-haul a few years ago).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Acceptable risk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Acceptable risk
For years people could get through and planes did not fall out of the sky. And those that were commandeered in 2001 obviously had a number of other vulnerabilities (that presumably have been fixed but could be "fixed" even further by putting planes into autopilot from the ground if an authenticated heartbeat signal from the pilot ends). In fact, 2001 surprised a lot of people. Had people believed the planes would have been crashed, none of them would have made it to their destination.
There is also the issue of us not giving people a reason to be that angry. Our government can do a better job if they wanted to. Someone crazy will always attempt something, but you usually have to be really angry to risk your life and see innocents die.
Would not the money be better spent in psychological training and other deterrents?
As for not being able to back out of the security, if you are really in suicide mode and several of you get sent out around the nation, you will either swallow hard and keep quiet if you got unlucky or else create the spectacle and damage right then and there.
And terrorists can't infiltrate TSA or get information from someone at some point in time?
Something randomly falling out of the sky has a lot more places to miss than to hit.
BTW, for all we know these machines are keeping full naked pictures of you and even selling marketing and biometric information based on this (ie, a plan to eventually photograph everyone). Are there laws to prevent this? Are we being conned into selling our bodies to corporations?
And why doesn't the software only generate things that aren't flesh/muscles/etc? It could easily just show the material they look for or else a blank screen. There is no reason to show anything near the level of detail these show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Acceptable risk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Acceptable risk
For this kind of reason Belfast airport used to have (I think it's now inoperative - havn't been there in a while) a perimiter checkpoint manned by soldiers.
As I undertand it (2nd hand experience not personal), during the height of "the troubles" these searches could be quite invasive - and they may in this case have contributed to security since there was a direct and specific threat rather than a nebulous one, but I think many irish people would say that these kinds of tactics prolonged the hate and so the conflict.
By generating FUD and anger in people in response to "terror" attacks you give the attackers the win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Acceptable risk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Acceptable risk
But now, that same bomber might be able to take a few of those new high priced body scanners out with him/her. What will the corporate bean counters who make said products think then? I'll tell you: "Mo' Money, Mo' Money, Mo' Money!", because they now get to sell the government even higher cost replacement scanners (now bomb-proofed).
So, the truth is finaly revealed. The scanners aren't there for the safety of passengers, they really just protect the multi-million dollar plane. Reminds me of the hidden truth of an old Bill Cosby story on the album 200M.P.H. when referring to fast cars, "Now I know why they make safety belts. They're not concerned with my safety. The ambulance driver is too lazy to look for the body."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
According to the article linked above the agents told him,
Let me get this straight, he violated federal law for following the orders of the agents. He violated federal law because he allowed himself to be escorted out by armed agents. Wow, so much for the land of the free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Land of the Free
Also, the "Land of the Free" has more people per capita in prison than any other country in the world.
Obviously, the name is satirical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The airline was right to refund it, too. The TSA blocked the carrier contract (that's what the ticket is, a contract) between Tyner and the airline. The airline could have just said, "Eh, tough cookies, it's non-refundable." But they did the right thing by giving the money back.
So at this point Tyner turned the ticket back in and got his money back. What was he going to do; ask for the ticket to be un-refunded? The airline agent would've looked at Sport Coat Guy and said, "Make up yo' dam' mind, Foo".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is exactly right, and that is what the TSA is hoping people will not catch with this "Lawsuit" that they are continuing with. Also, he was already out of the screening area, which he was escorted from by police and TSA officials, so he did not leave on his own. Because of this, it is clear why the TSA official was trying so hard (in a fake nice way) to get him BACK to the screening area, where he would have lost his rights again. A smart lawyer is going to see all of this before it even goes to court and put a stop to it. TSA is still trying to frighten people into not repeating what this guy did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The bigger problem is Trust
So while AIT might bring some debatable benefit, it seems clear that we are by far less secure since TSA is now treating passengers as potential enemies and alienating the most important part of airline security - passengers!
You can't focus exclusively on technology, you have to take the human factor into account when it comes to security!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Second, It's airport security. At the right time, there can be hundreds of people there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I wonder if the goal isn't instead to scan everyone casually for future use of that data?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why would a $10,000 fine deter a suicide bomber?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why would a $10,000 fine deter a suicide bomber?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why would a $10,000 fine deter a suicide bomber?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Seriously, though, still a good point. TSA needs to employ only eunuchs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe TSA screeners should be "de-sexed" (castrated, etc.). Ancient societies used to do that to harem guards and so forth. I would imagine that it might make recruitment a little more difficult, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just kidding.
Half way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The government finally admits it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't see anywhere that claims that all screening procedures must be completed for all pasengers. As I understand the extra screening, it is both for pasengers regarded (for any reason) as suspicious, as well as random screening used as a deterent (if you want to smuggle stuff on the plane, you risk being one of those randomly screened even if you have a good poker face).
Anyone who is chosen for the extra screening and refuses it is obviously suspicious, and saying "no problem, you don't have to then" would be completely reckless, since they will just try again, with the odds in their favour that they won't be selected next time.
While trapping the bomber might cause them to attempt to detonate right away (although, it seems like these things take some time to prepare anyway) blowing up the airport at the location they flying from probably does little if anything to further their agenda (so they would have to just be plain suicidal rather than kamikaze). Plus, this situation always exists when security uncovers security threats and ignoring them means they get another try at their real target (rather than just a random bomb somewhere) plus if they wanted to blow up the area before going through security, they already could.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, because Mr. Don't Touch My Junk was OBVIOUSLY a terrorist and should have been shot in the head the moment he hesitated to comply with instructions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Where I'm from, it's suspicious if you *do* want a male stranger to touch your frank and beans.
Reality check: It's not suspicious to want to keep your dignity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you drop someone in a tank of water and they drown it means they weren't a witch.
It's also true that if you point a gun at me and demand my wallet, one of the myriad reasons I might not want to hand it over is because I have an embarrasing picture in it. That doesn't make it the most likely reason.
Which is more likely, given the zero number of terrorists caught by this method? Someone refusing because they are a terrorist, or someone refusing because of 1 of 20 or 30 possible personal reasons - hapnophobia or gymnophobia for example.
Ever heard the phrase "If you hear hooves think horses not zebras"? Why would you assume the least statistically likely reason for a refusal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If a security scan is a violation of rights, or a punishment, that is a seperate issue and no one should be subjected to it, and security scans must be abolished entirely. Thats fine, but it doesn't change the fact that it completely undermines the idea of having random extra checks if the person who *is* trying to smuggle something has such a simple way to avoid them as to just keep trying over and over with no worry of being caught.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dude, you're very ignorant about the Bill of
Rights if you think it only applies to "punishments" or "condemnations".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If having the checkstop at all is a violation of rights, fine, remove it entirely, but don't leave it there to harrass everyone except the people who are willing to go out of their way to to avoid it. Whats the point in that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it needs to be changed...
Until we pull our heads out of our asses and use a real security system/procedure I'm going to make this fun for the TSA. I'm going to refuse the backscatter scan and I'm going to think about my wife naked before I get felt up and moan when the agent gets to my crotch. That'll screw his day up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it needs to be changed...
That's a lot more work and therefore "not the way we roll here'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Underpants bomber
These procedures would not have stopped him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Underpants bomber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Underpants bomber
aka: Fruit of the Loom Kaboom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time
Perhaps we could get the per-passenger time down a little as victims get better at "assuming the position". But the main delay is waiting for the data to be transmitted and reviewed and the results returned.
The naked scanner seems to have about the same staffing requirements as a magnetometer.
So, if we are gonna try to replace magnetometers with naked scanners, how many more will we need? How many more TSA employees? Or are we gonna save them for "randomly selected" passengers and continue sending most thru the old way?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not one, according to NPR
I don't know whose fault it is, perhaps the usual "you and me", but as a society we've either somehow agreed or had taken away our responsibility to ourselves to defend ourselves from those who would harm us. I frankly don't look at the phone and feel safe after hearing about recent home invasions that have happened around the city I live in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...or charter a plane
...or kidnap John Travolta
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abdulmutallab
Actually, from everything I've read on it, it sounds like the only thing that stopped him was his ineptitude. He caught his pants on fire after spending 20 min in the bathroom and returning to his seat. Sounds like the detonator failed or the chemicals were mixed incorrectly and combusted without explosive force.
But either way, I can't find anything about whether or not he was subjected to an AIT scan.
So here's a question: if the explosive materials were sewn into his underwear, would the 'grainy and non-detailed' image have shown that? What if the entirety of my underwear were packaged with evenly-distributed material? Would it show up different? If so, what about the TSA's claim that you can't really see details so it's not 'pornographic'? Where's the lie here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Abdulmutallab
No - our long existing, basic security measures forced him to adopt a bizarre mechanism which then was bound to fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Abdulmutallab
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Abdulmutallab
Well, eventually people will find ways around this.
Do these machines see things you have swallowed and can later regurgitate or pull out (eg, with a string)?
X-Rays were fun to play with for a while. I really wonder about health hazards if they eventually try to plug holes by making everyone go through them all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Abdulmutallab
The next generation scanners will supposedly have higher power that will allow agents to see all the way through the body to also detect internal contraband. Refusing to be scanned by these new machines will result in full body cavity examinations (except for govt officials and certain others). You can never be too safe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Abdulmutallab
Being a govt official, or even a member of the US Armed Forces in uniform travelling on official business (though most members of the military do not travel in uniform any more unless they are on honor-guard duty,) does not mean anything to the TSA, nor does being a pilot who has direct control of the airplane and can crash it into a building themselves instead of bringing weapons on the plane. TSA even scans their own people on a regular basis. And sometimes, they use these scans to belittle their own employees who are accidently scanned during the course of their jobs. No one is immune to getting scanned by the TSA, except, apparently until recently, those who have religious objections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Abdulmutallab
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Abdulmutallab
Presumably the guy could have opted out of the scan and had the pat-down. Could the explosive material be detected through a thick pair of blue jeans?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. No, TSA doesn't care about airplanes, they don't own a single one (except for ones that their own employees use). They do not have a "corporate view", only a government view. Corporations are dependent upon profit to function, and must therefore please and appeal to their customers. Governments can just take what they want from their citizens. This is an important distinction.
2. A bomb detonated during a pat-down would likely kill primarily TSA agents, so no, they are probably not fans of that either (if any of the rent-a-cops manning the scanner stations have even thought of that. They are just following orders).
3. No, TSA does not depend on passengers. TSA is funded only by tax payers, who have no choice at all about where their money goes or even if they will give it. They will stand there all day even if not a single citizen comes through to be screened, and they will remain in place even if every single plane contains a bomb which goes off. They are not accountable to anyone, and there are no "customers", only subjects. This is why all our protests will not matter at all unless we can get congress or the courts or (least likely yet) the president involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Would they jump off of a cliff if told to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It did as long as they were in power and it was only afterward that it didn't "cut it". I don't see the US govt falling any time soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Was there no Government from 1969-71?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Was Calley following govt orders?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Taking the witness stand, Calley, under the direct examination by his civilian defense lawyer George Latimer, claimed that on the previous day, his commanding officer, Captain Medina, made it clear that his unit was to move into the village and that everyone was to be shot for they all were Viet Cong. 21 other members of Charlie Company also testified on Calley's defense corroborating the orders."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley
Scroll down to "Murder Trial." 1-2 screens depending on monitor & resolution.
Also, make it 1968-71.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You conveniently left out this: "Medina was acquitted of all charges relating to the incident at a separate trial in August 1971." And this: "Medina publicly denied that he had ever given such orders and he had meant enemy soldiers, while Calley took the assumption that his orders, "kill the enemy" meant to kill everyone." And this: "Calley took the assumption that his orders, "kill the enemy" meant to kill everyone."
In other words, Calley tried to twist his orders to justify murdering women and children. The court didn't buy it and it's sad that there people running around today trying to justify what he did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the contrary, I don't think you read it yourself. Calley took it upon himself to do what he did and your attempts to justify his actions reflect upon yourself as well. You make me sick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My good deed for the day done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Calley probably said something similar.
Yes, I know your type.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This needs to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Same thing in a corpocracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For all we know, these companies scratch the government's desire to "bodyprint" everyone and in return they get to sell and use that data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Be even clearer: Abdulmutallab was *walked through* security.
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2009/12/flight_253_passenger_says_at_l.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I want to know how many terrorists actually probe security wearing a full suicide-vest? or carrying a bomb?
If it was me I first go through the airport security a dozen times with nothing and see what they do and only then I would try something else, so it is hard to accept that it makes "good security sense" to force people to complete the whole process if they are not going onto the plane, if they want security to be really tight they should put the verification on the front door of the airport, at which point terrorists would try to plant people inside to handle the baggage or as flight attendants and so forth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tactical blind spot...
The biggest problem is that the government is assuming that the terrorists are idiots and are going to use the same tactic again. So, they funnel more and more resources into counter-measures for a tactic that's probably not going to be used again. More likely next time they'll load up a twin engine prop plane with either explosives or drums of fuel and fly it into a stadium, maybe of a local high school football game. Say an old DC-9 can carry a LOT of explosives. Even a twin engine commercial plane could carry a couple of hundred pounds of C-4 easily. And if that happened, there wouldn't be much left of the stadium. (depending where they hit)
Their whole mentality is reactionary, which means the initiative is still with the terrorists, and not with the counter-terrorists.
People forget the terrorist idea is to make us feel unsafe and destabilize society to make way for their revolution. Unless you understand the objective of their tactics, you'll never understand their tactics at all. They don't care if it's 30 people or 3,000 people, if it achieves their end of producing terror, it's worthwhile from their point of view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tactical blind spot...
The biggest problem is that the government is using terrorism as a means to their own ends. As has already been mentioned, the 'underwear bomber' seems to have been set up in order to push through these invasive new 'security' measures.
"People forget the terrorist idea is to make us feel unsafe and destabilize society to make way for their revolution. Unless you understand the objective of their tactics, you'll never understand their tactics at all."
That statement seems more applicable to the government at the moment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, To Go Anywhere, You Will Be ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom Free Loaders
Freedom is NEVER free, only to the nit picking free loaders
who whine about any cost to them, or any slight inconvenience at the Airport check in.
Freedom like love is a sacrifice, of which the self centered fail to see. Nothing worth while in this world ever comes free, and if it appeared that it did, someone else paid the cost for you. So, BE THANKFUL!
Trust you infantile, went out the door when Islamic extremists decided to wage war on the infidels of the west [ thats you ]. And though you may think whining will bring back the good ol days, your seriously mistaken.
Nobody likes the invasion of privacy, but when you enter a system of transport that is PUBLIC, there is liability. Not just cost of lives, but many types of assets and not just monetary ones you bitter cynic.
When your mother gets blown out of the sky, you be screaming revenge against those who should have provided security. Not to mention, you'll want to sue for the insurance money and damages. Anyone who says different is a liar.
I challenge you to come up with a better solution, then lobby your government. But that's unlikely to happen, since you spend most of your time complaining. Me thinks you have something to hide, no?
No system is perfect, as its implemented by humans.
But with some patience, good workable solutions can be found. Give it time, and give them CONSTRUCTIVE feedback. Not petty jibes. As this security problem won't go away. Not even if ALL the countries pullout of Islamic hot spots all around the world.
Last but not lest, the initial blast of such detonation devices kill less people in an airport scenarios than in an Airplane. As the blast requires confinement to amplify damage to targets. Any explosives technician or expert with rudimentary surveying of the materials to be used can attest to this.
P.S. The land of the free came at a great cost to your founding fathers. But given you have little respect for their sacrifice, I dare say you'd have much for your own.
Apologies if my tone sounded harsh or convicting.
Nothing personal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freedom Free Loaders
We managed to survive the Cold War against a super power without resorting to this sort of privacy invasion. You're telling me that a bunch of psychos hiding in caves are a greater danger?
If you want your absolute security, go hide in a bunker. The rest of us have lives to go on with, and we would rather not let the terrorists win by letting our government strip us of our dignity.
Don't be fooled. TSA has never caught a terrorist. They likely never will. And you will rue the day a terrorist tries to smuggle a bomb onto a plane in his rectum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freedom Free Loaders
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freedom Free Loaders
Honest to god, I'm tired of typing this:
"Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither." -- Ben Franklin
Seems like at least one of them would be against this, yes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freedom Free Loaders
I am sorry that you are not willing to stand up for your own rights. Do not ridicule those of us who stand up for our own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freedom Free Loaders
But I would not sue anyone or cry for revenge from anyone except the extremists who did this. I love how this is a rally-cry for government sheep... that's right, just let the government do whatever they want because, hey, it's just the cost of freedom! Yay! Dumbass.
I'd go on grabbing quotes from your post, but let's summarize the real point here...
We're not 'whining' about losing some personal freedoms here... we're arguing (quite correctly) that our freedoms are being taken for absolutely nothing of value. The 'safety' that we're being given in return is a sham. And it's all being done by a government that has REPEATEDLY in the past shown that it is corrupt, on the payroll of interests and corporations, and doesn't give a DAMN about our rights or the American Way.
Hmm... let's think about that for a second... corrupt government, unfair actions, being told what to do against what we think is right... I think I remember a group of people that suffered that and rebelled. Damn... who were they?! OH! That's right! British Colonists who eventually became the United States of America.
I my opinion, anyone who just goes along with the government without asking questions is about as UN-American as you can get.
So in closing, since you deigned to tell me who I am and then call me a liar: go fsck yourself... nothing personal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Freedom Free Loaders
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freedom Free Loaders
Incredible satire. You win an interweb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-both er
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe this security is intended to deter the non-serious under a worse case assumption that many angry folks will attempt this at some point in time.
People in the public spotlight take security much more seriously than you or I do because they are bigger targets and live in a world where this issue comes up more frequently. If we don't appear to care too much, they will keep pushing more and more. As someone else implied on a youtube comment (to the video linked from here I think), maybe this is just another step along the way to adding security everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA screening
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Good Security Sense
That's probably also why the Houston Chief of Police advocated putting police cameras in private homes too.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-15-houston-cameras_x.htm
It just makes good security sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What's so interesting about going to jail?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Know any airports with hot female TSA agents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ive flown many times
I have ONLY gone through metal detectors. Several times, I forgot to take my belt off. I built my belt from a bike tire and some bent copper wire (like 4 gauge). If the metal detector misses my huge copper belt buckle, what else is it missing.
If you dont want trouble, think smart. On a business trip to tucson, AZ, I had brought back several thick books and several heavy rocks
I brought the rocks on the plane
Before I placed my carry-on on the belt, I split the contents into three layers, thin enough for x-rays to get through
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ive flown many times
If you don't want trouble, keep your head down, speak only when spoken to, and do as you're told.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ive flown many times
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
probe
I mean seriously? These are the same people that spend time documenting how troops respond to sniper fire so they can most effectively steer them into IAD's (bastards), yet they can't plan ahead, or even a one man operation can't scout ahead, enough to know the program?
That is a ridiculous argument on the face.
I generally just won't fly anymore it's not worth the aggravation and getting my blood pressure up over the wast involved in this kind of theater. Not everyone is so lucky though to have that option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Security Theater: Howto Sell Expensive Piracy-Evading Junk
part of the travel season, and right after the election.
If someone wants to do some cross-referencing to determine if it's politically motivated (which it probably is), look into these pieces of info.
First, here are the major manufacturers/models are these companies.
*American Science and Engineering (device name: Smartcheck)
*Rapiscan Systems (a subsidiary of OSI Systems Inc.) (device name: Secure 1000)
*Tek84/SAIC (formerly Spectrum San Diego Inc.) (device name: AIT84 Body Scanner & Castscope)
I used http://www.OpenSecrets.org and found that SAIC had quite a few political contributions this last election cycle. I'm sure ASE&E and RapiScan made more contributions, i just found SAIC more interesting.
SAIC probably has a bunch of neat, shiny, expensive privacy evading stuff they want to sell to the government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAIC_(company)
http://www.traffictechnologytoday.com/ne ws.php?NewsID=18530
So here's a tentative list of lawmakers that received money from one of these 3 companies in the last election.
House:
* Bennie G Thompson (D). (Outgoing Chairman of Homeland Security)
* Hal Rogers (R, KY- Homeland Security), Incoming Chairman of Homeland Security
* John Carter (R, TX- Homeland Security)
* John Culberson (R, TX- Homeland Security)
* Ken Calvert (R, CA- Homeland Security)
* Jerry Lewis (R, CA- Homeland Security)
* Bennie G Thompson (D- from American Science and Engineering.)
* Rep Daniel Inouye, Chairman of Appropriations received a contribution from AS&E.
* Frank R. Wolf, Thad Cochran, also on the Appropriations.
* Steve Rothman on Homeland Security; SIAC
Senate:
These people are on the Armed Services "Emerging Threats" committee and accepted campaign contributions from
one or more of the 3 contractors in the last election.
* Bill Nelson, Chairman
* Ben Nelson
* Evan Bayh
* Jeff Bingaman
* Roger Wicker
* Scott Brown (Yes the Tea Party guy)
* Richard Burr
* John McCain
I'm sure there are more people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Security Theater: Howto Sell Expensive Piracy-Evading Junk
But you're illustrating a point that we all have accepted... the people who profit off this are the ones who are pushing it into the TSA, who doesn't really want to solve a proble, just to look like they are.
No suprise, but still some damn good info!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Security Theater: Howto Sell Expensive Piracy-Evading Junk
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00347385&cycle=2010
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well if worse comes to worse I wonder if they'll put all of us in booths, make you drop your drawers and cough. Maybe they need to implement it at the borders as well.
Pure insanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Children over 12 may get pat downs? Like hell! Your not going to Pat down my 14 year old daughter with anxiety and sensory issues and she can't have a screening because of her personal history with precancerous skin issues.
They are just not thinking!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Harassing pregnant woman about bringing through breastmilk!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]