Congress Wants To Cut Funds To The TSA For Naked Scanners

from the looks-like-someone's-paying-attention dept

Tue, May 17th 2011 12:55pm — Mike Masnick

Via Slashdot we learned that the House Appropriations Committee's latest plan specifically cuts funding for the TSA's naked body scanners. In the section about the TSA, it notes:

The bill includes $7.8 billion for the TSA, an increase of $125 million over last year�s level, and $293 million below the President�s request. These funds will be used to sustain the current cap level of 46,000 full time screening personnel, and for explosive detection systems, security enforcement, cargo inspections, Federal Air Marshals, and other TSA activities. The bill also includes an additional $10 million to address air cargo threats. However, the bill does not provide $76 million requested by the President for 275 additional advanced inspection technology (AIT) scanners nor the 535 staff requested to operate them.

This won't stop the many such machines already in service, but could potentially slow the expansion of the use of such machines. Of course, I'm sure one carefully placed "soft on terrorists!" fear mongering report will ensure such machines get funded soon enough anyway.

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: congress, funds, scanners, tsa

23 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2011 @ 12:57pm

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chosen Reject (profile), 17 May 2011 @ 1:07pm
  
  Re:
  They'll keep getting molested by the TSA just as before.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DannyB (profile), 17 May 2011 @ 2:55pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No. Not like before. :-)
    
    With fewer naked scanners, it will be necessary to grope even more people.
    
    After all:
    * You must be a pirate
    * You must be a terrorist
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 17 May 2011 @ 1:12pm
  
  Re:
  Yes I know. If the TSA doesn't get this funding they won't be able to look at children naked or have an excuse to feel them up. The TSA needs to get their pedo fix.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 17 May 2011 @ 1:09pm

These "air marshals" we keep funding...
Do they do anything? Every time a potential attack goes down, it always seems to be the ordinary citizens coming to the rescue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2011 @ 1:14pm
  
  Re: These "air marshals" we keep funding...
  The system works!!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Atkray (profile), 17 May 2011 @ 1:16pm
  
  Re: These "air marshals" we keep funding...
  I for one would rather allocate the entire budget to ineffective (I'm not saying they are) air marshals than the rest of the goon squad.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 17 May 2011 @ 1:28pm

I wish they would
I have been flying in and out of Atlanta a lot lately and there are only two naked scanners for over 20 security lines. If you are unlucky enough to hit one of those two, you get scanned or groped. Until last week, I have successfully avoided the lines. Last week I got line number 12, avoid this line if you can, and ended up at the naked scanner. I opted to be groped. It wasn't as bad as I expected but it still sucked. I imagine the groping is a far more reliable method for finding hidden items than the scanners.

Funny thing was, I told the guy at the scanner I wasn't going through it. He got testy and asked why. I got testy back and told him it was my choice and I wasn't going to do it. I figured he would make the groping as horrible as possible to encourage me to be scanned instead. But he didn't which could be because he doesn't enjoy fondling me anymore than I enjoy the fondling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Doe, 17 May 2011 @ 1:29pm
  
  Re: I wish they would
  Just to add a point, Atlanta is the busiest airport in the country and I believe the world and it has 2 naked scanners. The other small airport I fly out of at home has 0 naked scanners. So just how necessary are they?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Vincent Clement (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 6:03am
    
    Re: Re: I wish they would
    I'd ask a more basic question: How necessary is the TSA?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2011 @ 1:49pm
  
  Re: I wish they would
  you aren't a little boy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
cc (profile), 17 May 2011 @ 1:30pm

$7.8 billion! Do you realise how much money that is? That's more than half the size of the US recording industry, even before Napster ($13bn in 1998).

Then again, maybe it's tiny? The US GDP is 14 TRillion. All this copyright-let's-kill-the-internet horseshit is over such a tiny industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2011 @ 1:52pm
  
  Re:
  you need to add the MPAA in there to be a little more accurate. They are the two pushing hardest for the horseshit you were referring to. Though I still love a thought from a previous post that Larry Paige could just buy UMG or Sony BMG with his personal bank account.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - cc (profile), 17 May 2011 @ 3:00pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Ok, add another ~$50bn for the MPAA.
    
    That's 60 billion out of 14 trillion, or 0.4%.
    
    Compare that to the IT industry. Google alone has a market cap of over $180bn.
    
    Seriously, cut the TSA and you're 1/6 to making up the difference.
    
    It's just too much ado about nothing. I can't believe we're putting up with things like internet censorship for an industry this size. What are the politicians even thinking?? -- especially when the protectionist laws they're making are getting in the way of innovations like YouTube, Bittorrent, Google Books...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris ODonnell (profile), 17 May 2011 @ 1:31pm

So Congress cuts off funding for scanners, forcing TSA to hire a bunch more people to grope us. Since a Federal bureaucracy's power is directly related to its headcount, I fail to see how this is a bad thing for TSA. If I were conspiracy minded, I might even wonder if it's all part of "The Plan."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- HothMonster, 17 May 2011 @ 2:57pm
  
  Re:
  i cant wait to see the people that apply for the new "full-time groping" position.
  
  We might have to add more incentives to being a politician or we could lose them all, cause really this is a more direct way to rape people.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
zegota (profile), 17 May 2011 @ 1:51pm

Or, you know, you could just pass a law banning scanners/groping instead of spending your time playing stupid little budget games and making sure women don't have access to reproductive health care. I know, I'm a dreamer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2011 @ 3:46pm
  
  Re:
  A but if they pass a law to stop it, they get called soft on terrorism and get tossed out. If they don't fund the damn thing, they are for smaller government and saving us from the evil people who want to spend us into oblivion.
  
  As to stopping reproductive health care, I would really like the other "side" to consider the following...
  I do not want my tax dollars to pay for wars.
  Why are my demands ignored while you get to hold everyone hostage for your "religious" beliefs?
  
  You refuse to educate them so they avoid the problem, you refuse to help them even if they are raped, and you refuse to help the unintended offspring who often find themselves wards of the state. Please pull your head out of the sand and stop pretending that these problems are not connected. I understand your desire to make sure there are still guests for the afternoon talk shows looking for their baby daddy, but I think your just being selfish again.
  
  Maybe if you stopped worrying about having control over somebody elses uterus because your "religious leader" told you you have that right, and focused on the real problems in our society we might solve some of them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 17 May 2011 @ 6:31pm
    
    Re: Getting Called �Soft On Terrorism�
    Yeah, but America�s #1 Bogeyman is dead. So unless they can find a new Bogeyman in a hurry, all this security theatre is playing to an empty audience.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2011 @ 7:34pm
      
      Re: Re: Getting Called �Soft On Terrorism�
      No they have a plethora of them to choose from...
      
      Illegal Immigrants!
      
      Domestic Terrorists!
      
      Anyone who dares to be Muslim!
      
      Gays! They want to get married and destroy the world!
      
      The "theft" of our valuable intellectual property!
      
      CyberWorld War!
      
      Bradley Manning!
      
      Julian Assange!
      
      People who question how we torture!
      
      Teachers! How dare they expect a contract to be upheld!
      
      For the children!
      
      All of societies ills are caused by easily identifiable targets, unless you take the pragmatic approach.
      
      We didn't have these problems until the government created the situations that caused them, and they cause them to get elected and stay in power. I look at it like religion, your beliefs are fine and dandy up until you expect someone else to tell you how to do it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Vincent Clement (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 6:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Getting Called �Soft On Terrorism�
        Drug War!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
trish, 17 May 2011 @ 3:53pm

a little modesty
Maybe the feds have some intelligence that the terrorists are too modest to dare passing through the scanners (or getting to third base with a stranger).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not an American, 17 May 2011 @ 11:11pm

never
Sure as hell, I never will go to the USA. Neither for business nor for pleasure. I am not fond of the idea of being groped as a welcoming ceremony. Not to mention the $14 entry fee. On the other hand, if they would stop groping and sold all the scanners as scrap metal, then maybe I would consider it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]