Time Magazine Says TSA Groping Not A Problem & It's All Blown Out Of Proportion By The Internet
from the thinking-critically-not-required dept
One of the complaints frequently leveled at the mainstream press is that they don't do much critical thinking. All too often, it feels like they've simply turned into scribes, rather than people who will help everyone in the community better understand things. Case in point: Time Magazine's Alex Altman has published quite an article suggesting that the anthropmorphized "internet" is making too big a deal of the TSA's "naked or a grope" security procedures. Of course, the internet itself doesn't have "ephemeral obsessions," as Altman implies: people do. Altman could have a point that people are overreacting but let's look at the evidence he uses to support this position. Amusingly, it's actually two pieces of info that we had already discussed and debunked, which Altman and Time Magazine took at face value. First up:With furor of the full-body scans and invasive pat-downs reaching critical mass, TSA Administrator John Pistole went before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Wednesday morning to explain why the new screening measures are a necessary evil.We already discussed Pistole's testimony and why he's actually lying. Contrary to what Pistole claims (and Altman bought without checking), the vast majority of people getting on planes in US airports are going through neither full body scans or "an uncomfortably thorough pat-down." Most people are still just going through traditional metal detectors. Even in the airports that have the backscatter naked image scanners, most passengers still just go through traditional metal detectors. Claiming that all passengers now go through either the backscatter scans or get a thorough pat-down is a lie.
Pistole was conciliatory but resolute: If you're going to get on a plane, you're either going to be photographed with advanced imaging technology--the "full-body scans" that render all-too-detailed impressions of travelers' physiques--or endure an uncomfortably thorough pat-down.
While you'd never guess it from the hysterical media coverage, most people are...pretty OK with that. The breathless headlines and expert discussion forums provide a distorted picture of public perception. According to a CBS News poll, 81% of Americans approve of the decision to use full-body X-ray machines to weed out terrorist threats. Sometimes the screams of an aggrieved minority drowns out the rest of the public, and this may be one of those cases.Except, again, this isn't quite accurate. As we discussed in our post about the poll, if you go and look at what the poll actually asked it phrased the question in a way that leaves out all of the concerns people have about the scanners and only implies that the scanners help security. That's obviously not a fair poll and the results should be discounted accordingly. Does Altman bother to check on all of this? Of course not.
Altman may be right that people are overreacting but he didn't help by simply repeating the claims of Pistole and a weak poll, when both have already been proven to be misleading at best and downright false at worst. Perhaps instead of rushing to mock "the internet" and its mythical "ephemeral obsessions," Altman could have taken some time to actually research the issue and to inform people of the details rather than just repeating the misleading claims from the TSA. That's the kind of thing that would actually build up trust in the press, rather than disdain for the press.
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: alex altman, backscatter, journalism, privacy, scanners, security, time magazine, tsa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
A Fair Hearing
I say that he volunteer to do the rounds with several news shows, both network, and cable, and undergo both the backscatter scan, and the enhanced pat-down. Let everyone see exactly what TSA staff do and see in the process. Then we'll have a real step towards an informed discussion*.
*Just to balance out the theater of TV, I would encourage all good citizens to videotape as many of these procedures as possible on site as they occur, and distribute them online for comparison purposes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyway, giving the benefit of the doubt to Pistole I would read "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 a poor choice wording for the intended:
"[AIT is not being forced on anyone,] However [...]"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
He said everyone has to get a pat down or a scan. That's not true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The text you quoted from Pistole seems to be about the underwear bomber, and I can't find anywhere in his transcript that he claims everyone has to go through a pat down or a scan, in fact it seems quite clear they are talking about random screenings in that conversation, Ensign certainly is, anyway:
"
ENSIGN: No, no, I--let me--maybe not (inaudible) my question. If somebody is--a random screening. I just got randomly screened at the airport. For whatever reason, my number seems to come up quite often. [...]
"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shoddy Workmanship
"Do you think the TSA should take measures to protect passenger safety?"
They could then claim "99.99% of people polled are perfectly okay with the TSA taking nude images and/or groping them!"
If you're going to put out blatantly pro-government propaganda, at least do it right. Even Saddam knew that; he always got 100% of the vote when he was in power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shoddy Workmanship
"Do you think that either the TSA should take measures to protect passenger safety or that cute fluffy baby kittens are indeed cute?"
Answer? 99.999999% in the affirmative. It's only not 100% because I've taught my dogs to use the internet....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shoddy Workmanship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Shoddy Workmanship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Shoddy Workmanship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Shoddy Workmanship
Do you think, for the children, that the TSA should, for the children, do for the children whatever they can to keep our children and their children safe from fiery plane crashes that would kill our children?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shoddy Workmanship
Anyone in opposition, say "I hate America!".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People who think this is OK should be thinking about kids. The first person to touch your private parts shouldn't be the TSA agent at the airport. My son was 13 and pulled out of line at the gate for a "special" security check along with other passengers as we were boarding the plane. Right in the open they are rubbing and grabbing body parts. If a stranger does this on the street that person would get arrested and go to prison. At the airport it is supposed to be ok. What's the difference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Completely not Necessary
There are large crowds of people everywhere in major cities and don't tell me the response wouldn't be equally dramatic if 50 people get killed in a terror related event rather than 200.
It's garbage. It's an erosion of our privacy and personal freedom. It's that simple. Centers of power and enforcement in our Government grabbing for more power. They're slowly trying to make us compliant with any invasion they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Completely not Necessary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ineffective screening
This is very similar to how DRM does nothing to stop pirates but inconveniences the law-abiding public. The policies will not stop terrorists, but they will humiliate innocent Americans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If this protects anything (and that's an enormous "if")...
Consider: did you go through screening after you parked in remote lot 4 and got on the shuttle bus to terminal C? Who else was on that bus? Are you sure they weren't armed? What was in their luggage? Do you think they could drive the bus?
It's telling that the line that's been drawn is at the planes. TSA clearly doesn't give a rat's ass if hundreds or thousands of people die -- as long as it's not on a plane. They're expensive, y'know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey it's Vince with the slap chop
Time Magazine was paid to write it I bet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey it's Vince with the slap chop
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HEY Time Magazine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To paraphrase, If you listen real close, you can hear the terrorists laughing at you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm like sure. Whatever.
Immediately after the scan, they still patted me down.
So what was the point of allowing for opt-outs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
neither, nor?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny things to say
-
is this where I turn my head and cough?
(pointing to previous fondlee) am I bigger than that guy?
(or) do you think her tits are fake?
I wish my wife would do this...
*hold hand up to ear in shape of phone and mouth* "call me"
So...uh...how much for a happy ending?
No, father Murphy, not again..!
Being that you stand next to an x-ray machine all day, how come you don't wear a radiation badge?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and this is why I question the honesty of various MSM survey results. These people have an agenda, they have predetermined what the results should be before even conducting any surveys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...incoming chief deputy DA of San Mateo Steve Wagstaffe said his office will prosecute TSA employees who engage in lewd and lascivious behavior while conducting Homeland Security mandated patdowns at the San Francisco International Airport in San Mateo County.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MSNBC has a few other polls...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kinda like the test in my programming class. 24 extremely hard brain-bending questions. Question number 25 simply states: Ignore the previous 24 questions. You are finished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please don't fly
What is the solution? Tell me! Any ideas? Quit crying, take a train, boat. Don't get me killed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please don't fly
Actually, I'm betting that these terrorists love the fact that we went from being a relatively free society to:
- Being willing to subject people to modesty demolishing scans and pat downs to fly a plane.
- Eliminating the scourge of toner cartridges from the friendly skies.
- A government that's willing to give vague and non-specific, but thorougly stern warnings to the mass media about travel during holidays.
- Rendition and Guantanamo Bay, with a double side order of waterboardings.
In short, I'm willing to think you're not trolling long enough to tell you that these nutjobs are happy because they managed to turn us into EXACTLY the opposite of who we used to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please don't fly
You're new here, yes? We've already covered the fact that the 'underwear bomber':
1) Was never subjected to any TSA screening... he was coming in from out-of-country
2) was only stopped because the device he had on his body ONBOARD THE PLANE failed to detonate properly
3) would not have been stopped by a 'grope' because the back/top of the hand would fail to notice anything out of the ordinary with materials stitched into the underwear.
So tell me... how are the TSA doing anything? Just because no one's been caught doesn't mean the measures are working. That's like saying the Elephant Repellant works in New York City.
The terrorists love the fact that are security is so focused on ONE method of terror that they have quite a few alternatives that we haven't locked up yet. What they REALLY love is the multitude of sheep that have been lulled into a false sense of security by the TSA telling them "don't worry, you're safe because we're doing THIS".
If you're going to strip away my freedoms, at least do it for something more than a smoke & mirrors theater performance aimed at making sheep more comfortable and docile. Go baaaaah somewhere else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please don't fly
And remember, the Brits are laughing at us! Coming from the country with a camera on every street corner, that hurts. Loss of rights and freedoms to combat fear.. Plain and simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please don't fly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
I would disagree - from where I sit, the primary goal of the TSA is to make it LOOK like the government is trying to protect people from terrorists. It certainly seems to be ineffective, and bureaucratic, and authoritarian.
The best things that happened to improve security on planes was the addition of a secure cockpit door, and the willingness of passengers to fight back against those that would attempt to take over a flight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
Just like the 3+3+1 rule for liquids. That was instituted because of a foiled plot where someone was going to create an explosive device using gels carried on with them. But that was foiled in the UK, not America. We instituted the 3+3+1 to stop that kind of plot from happening here. Because I'm SO sure that terrorists would try it again after they saw how successful it was there. And that doesn't even take into account the GLARING hole in the logic of the 3+3+1: if I can't make enough explosive with the items I'm carrying, me and my accomplices could surely bring enough separately to combine later. I have no idea. Do you? Until you do, don't tell me that it's working just because something hasn't happened yet. There are many different factors that could be causing that... such as, not the least, the fact that it's a more tactically-sound plan to try a new and unexpected method of attack. You're using a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc argument. To quote Frank Herbert's character who was paraphrasing Nietzsche: "The noes does not cause the tail!" I will assume that your poorly structured sentance meant that you believe the primary goal of the TSA is to prevent terrorists from using transportation as missles (including planes), and to save the lives of passengers. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If I'm right, you are WAY off of thier purpose. Here's thier statement on thier own website... Sounds to me like their purpose is MUCH larger than just scanning you at the airport to make sure you don't fly the plane into a building. They arn't the Airport Security Authority or the No More Missle-Planes Authority. So where do you draw the line for your privacy and the privacy of the THOUSANDS and HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people who would be groped and prodded unnecessarily? What about the rape and assault victims and children who have to be subjected to that? If 1,000,000 people are scarred, is that your balance for a couple of hundred lives saved? And what if no terrorist is ever seen again? How many hypothetical lives do you tell yourself were saved so that you can sleep? Again, I refuse to limit the scope of my argument just to make yours sound more relevant. I never mentioned alternatives, but since you asked... I agree with the idea that passengers could be armed with non-lethal items such as stun-guns or a good ol' stick with which to subdue terrorists. Or, and I think I'm echoing a few people here, how about we accept the risks of the world we live in without SUCCUMBING TO TERROR. Its age, proliferation and list of users does not negate its relevance and applicability. If you'd prefer, I can use a parrot, since you seem to like bring up tired rhetoric of "never again" and "worth it in the end". How about I use “uncaring, heartless sociopath” since you want to try a Machiavellian "ends justify the means" excuse? Or, if none of those are to your liking, how about “mindless knee-jerk reactionary nationalist masquerading as a patriot by playing the 9/11-Card”?
You keep pointing at cliches, I'll keep smacking the logical fallacies down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
"I will assume that your poorly structured sentance meant that you believe the primary goal of the TSA is to prevent terrorists from using transportation as missles (including planes), and to save the lives of passengers. Correct me if I'm wrong. "
OK. Sentance=Sentence, missle=missile
The only way to prove the TSA is ineffective is to quit screening entirely then add up the casualties.
You never mentioned alternatives?
"The terrorists love the fact that are security is so focused on ONE method of terror that they have quite a few alternatives that we haven't locked up yet."
Was that you? Correct me if I'm wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
And, ok you caught my spelling errors that I missed in my spellchecker... but why not point out the three consecutive "thier"'s I had in there? Or my misspelling of "noes"? Or how about where I failed to hyphenate "poorly-structured"? If you're going to nitpick, feel free... but admit that my spelling errors was not corrupting my point. Your error was leading to a potential misunderstanding of your point. I'm a bad speller... I'll admit that. Want to admit to your poor sentence structure? I almost forgot that you actually replied to the points I was making and not just the spelling errors... altho both seemed quite lacking.
Actually, you're arguing against yourself there. If we were to stop all screening and watch the body count rise, all we would is how effective they were. To prove how ineffective they are, keep them in place and watch terrorists find other avenues of attack and laugh at us banning our >3oz hair gel bottles, water bottles, and Dr. Scholl's Inserts. All they have to do is blow up a mall and watch as we continue to feel each other up in airport security lines.
The TSA is ineffective because they are (to use another of your hated cliches) closing the barn door after the horse has already left. But the real problem with that is that they are doing so while saying "Look America, we're winning! We're sorry about your freedoms, but it's all for a good cause!" And they put into place security measures that independent research, testing and experts prove are INEFFECTIVE AT THEIR STATED PURPOUS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
"The only way to prove the TSA is ineffective is to quit screening entirely then add up the casualties."
The would prove either effectiveness or ineffectiveness, because if it is ineffective like you say, casualties would go up.
By the way, I said "transportation" on my poorly structured sentence, not just planes, but you don't read any better than you spell.
The TSA is not in charge of malls, they are in charge of transportation.
"Actually, you're arguing against yourself there. If we were to stop all screening and watch the body count rise, all we would is how effective they were."
You say that independent research, testing and experts proved the TSA is ineffective? How did they do that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
Thanks, I had it backwards but you proved my point. Removing the TSA would prove effectiveness or ineffectiveness. Lack of change = ineffective.
"True, but are those threats changed by the fact that we are focusing all of our attention on airlines? If anything, I think terrorists are sneaking in the back door while we're watching the front just because that's where they came in last time. Or, more accurately, I think that’s the stronger possibility than using airlines again. "
We're focusing all our attention on airlines? Only in this article. That's why I instructed you to limit the discussion to the act of flying planes into buildings.
The webs are alight with blogs about all security measures involving malls, power grid, cyber battles, mail bombs, etc. It's only because of the naked scans and pat downs that we discuss airports now.
"And they put into place security measures that independent research, testing and experts prove are INEFFECTIVE AT THEIR STATED PURPOUS[sic]."
I understood your sentence and still ask, how did these experts prove these were ineffective? It is the TSA that is using these security measures after all. If you have time, give me a link.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
If I agree to your Post Hoc Ergo Proptor Hoc argument, sure why not. However, until extensive studies and tests are done ALL of the factors involved, you cannot point to any one factor and say "There! That's the one that's doing it!"
So, no, I didn't prove your point. I merely made you more entrenched in a logical fallacy.
Of course this article is focused on the airports... because that's where the subject of privacy-invasion comes in. That's my whole point... look at all the attention the media is giving to just this ONE facet of anti-terrorism work. And that's why terrorists will have an easier time sneaking in the back door. Because one of our primary weapons in this - the alertness and awareness of the citizenry - is focused elsewhere.
I would argue that you didn't understand my sentence... hence your response of ...which is NOT what I said.
But now that you do seem to understand what I was talking about, let me Google a few links for you:
http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20101116-31209.html here's the one that Techdirt pointed to
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/11/tsa-says-better-body-scanners-will-end-p rivacy-uproar-dont-bet-on-it/66761/ here's another one that discusses the problem with the analysis technology, though I hesitate to label it as 'expert'.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/german_tv_on_th.html here's a site that has a link to my favorite video about the failure of the system to find multiple objects. Yes, some or most of them are in the guy’s jacket and that would have been removed, but what about the one in his mouth? Oops.
I'm sure there's more, but I'm at work and can't spend all day searching the interwebs for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
Of course it is focused on airports, that IS the whole point, and as I mentioned in the other comment you didn't read, the interwebs are alight news on what homeland is doing on all those fronts. I don't think they are ignoring any doors. We are talking about the TSA's groping and scanning. You keep trying to change the subject.
"If I agree to your Post Hoc Ergo Proptor Hoc argument, sure why not. However, until extensive studies and tests are done ALL of the factors involved, you cannot point to any one factor and say "There! That's the one that's doing it!"
Yes you did prove my point, nice of you to agree, try Mucinex. Your fallacy is trying to avoid failure.
The scanners have never been able to find something in a body cavity, this was reported from the beginning.
"I would argue that you didn't understand my sentence... hence your response of
"You say that independent research, testing and experts proved the TSA is ineffective? How did they do that?"
...which is NOT what I said."
Is the TSA using this technology? Yes they are. Your quibbling with semantics doesn't help your case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
Agreed, Homeland Security is applying their wonderful wares [sic] on other avenues. My point was that all this increased security at the cost of our privacy is unnecessary because terrorists are less likely to try the same path again. I'm not changing the subject, I'm illustrating my point.
No thanks, I don't need Mucinex. And I did not prove your point... why do you keep thinking that saying "Uh HUH!" is going to make you right? All other factors in this equation cannot be ignored in determining which single one is effective. You CAN NOT say the TSA is effective or ineffective just by removing it unless it is the ONLY FACTOR INVOLVED. Why is that so hard to understand?
My fallacy is trying to avoid failure? Are we switching to an Ad Hominem now?
And your twisting my points doesn't help your case. My comment was on the effectiveness of the technology the TSA is employing. I didn't say ANYTHING on how that reflects on the TSA's effectiveness. If you read that into my point, that's your inference, not mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
I never mentioned citizens reporting suspicious activity to anyone. Interesting and illustrative that this is the first place your mind went.
It is the duty of individual citizens to take personal responsibility in their own safety. And I feel it is a noble trait for an individual to take personal responsibility for the safety of others. But note that I said for an individual to do this. Because we have, as a society, failed to do this and to constantly cry to the government to do it for us, we have this situation where the TSA is being forced on us whether we want it or not.
If everyone would take this responsibility, we wouldn't need the TSA except for the more broad-scope things like making sure a shipping container isn't packed with a nuke.
So, for example, if some jackass pulls a gun in a line at the security check, every parent should react to shield their children, and everyone who's not doing that should tackle and subdue the guy. Could someone be shot? Yes. Would I rather be shot while taking action to protect myself and others instead of cowering in the corner? You bet your ass.
So, where in all of that did you hear me say "point and blow the whistle and tell big brother what Jonny is doing over there"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
I wasn't nitpicking... I was seeking clarification. Was I a bit pithy in my method? Perhapse. I'm a smartass. Sorry if I offended you with that.
But do feel free to point out my 'frequest misspellings' before the post that I helped rip back apart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
*perhaps
Time to fire either my coffee or my spellchecker. One of them is failing here. :/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
sentance=sentence
missles=missiles (twice)
thier=their (3 times)
arn't=aren't
Nascar=NASCAR (acronym)
altho=although (although I get it)
PURPOUS=PURPOSE (thanks for fessing up)
perhapse=perhaps
When you see the word underlined in red, you need to fire the coffee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
Before that ('that' being the first post I mentioned the sentence error), the only errors in my spelling were the ones I copied & pasted for quote purposes.
Again, feel free to point out the 'frequent misspellings' before my mention of grammar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
*my spelling errors WERE
*PURPOSE
FTFM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other Things the TSA could do to prevent terror attacks with planes, AKA, the follies of hindsight.
As long as it works even ONCE, the TSA could:
- Ask for the power to refuse anyone to fly. Why not cut out the inconvenient searches.
- Cavity searches, and forced emesis. To my understanding, both backscatter and patdowns can't catch items hidden in the body, and it's a natural progression for Bob Terror to make.
- Profiling. Let's do some real demographic research on just who does this, and where they're from. Automatically subject anyone meeting that criteria to any and all tests necessary to prove them safe enought to board.
- Force everyone to board the plane naked. We should have nothing to hide when lives are on the line!
Keep in mind that a similar attack hasn't happened here since, and that despite whatever you think, it could happen again, No. Matter. What. You do your best, and the rest is up to fate/chance/God/karma. Not even handsy agents and machines with x-ray specs can stop it.
Your opinion sucks because it stipulates that it's all gonna be worth it in the end, when all you're doing is setting up the next misguided hind-sighter to even greater hights of "security", all the while crying "Never Again!", and "As long as it suceeds ONCE, it's worth it!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Other Things the TSA could do to prevent terror attacks with planes, AKA, the follies of hindsight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Other Things the TSA could do to prevent terror attacks with planes, AKA, the follies of hindsight.
How about a real choice? How about I get to go through the old security system, you take the new, and I get to bet real money that once of us dies in a car accident after 10 years? Sure I don't get enjoy the money if I'm the unlucky party, but I got to fly way more hassle-free miles than you did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Other Things the TSA could do to prevent terror attacks with planes, AKA, the follies of hindsight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question, who owns Time magazine and what do they stand to gain by purporting such a story?
Again, I don't say this is fact but generally if you follow the money and it doesn't pass the sniff test...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and then note that nail clippers are specifically allowed by the TSA...
http://blog.tsa.gov/2009/05/tsa-urban-legends-nail-clippers.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]