US Changes How Air Travelers Are Screened 260
Hugh Pickens writes "The Washington Post reports that the Obama administration is abandoning its policy of using nationality alone to determine which US-bound international air travelers should be subject to additional screening and will instead select passengers based on possible matches to intelligence information, including physical descriptions or a particular travel pattern. Under the new system, screeners will stop passengers for additional security if they match certain pieces of known intelligence. The system will be 'much more intel-based,' a senior administration official says, as opposed to brute force. For example if US intelligence authorities learned about a terrorism suspect from Asia who had recently traveled to the Middle East, and they knew the suspect's approximate age but not name or passport number, those fragments would be entered into a database, shared with commercial airline screeners abroad, and screeners would be instructed to look for people with those traits and to pull them aside for extra searches. Administration officials have said that, in hindsight, the central failure in the attempted bombing of an Amsterdam-to-Detroit flight on Christmas Day involved inadequate sharing of information." In other TSA-related news, CNN takes a look at the full-body scanners that are beginning to be deployed in the US and elsewhere, concluding that they are good at finding concealed drugs but haven't found much that could bring down an airplane. John Perry Barlow is quoted: "Every time technology makes another leap forward, we have to reclaim the Fourth Amendment, and often we have to reclaim the entire Bill of Rights, because technology gives [the authorities] powers that were not envisioned by the Founding Fathers."
Random? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Random? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm white and and was born in the US and I've been randomly chosen several times.
Stop dressing like the unabomber when you go through security check points.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, basically, Stop Brown People For Being Brown? (Score:5, Funny)
See, it's not racial profiling if it's based on the shocking Intelligence Information that The Terrorists are often Brown People.
You may think I'm being sardonic, but you'd be wrong. If I were being sardonic, I'd have leaned to one side, sardonically.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Terrorists are often Brown People.
Except when they're black like the Christmas bomber, or white like Jihad Jane.
But don't let facts get in the way of your dreams.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So, basically, Stop Brown People For Being Brow (Score:5, Insightful)
except unabomber, oklahoma bomber, eco nuts, black panthers and other pure christian terrorists. but dont let facts get in the way of security theatre!
Re:So, basically, Stop Brown People For Being Brow (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, by "Oklahoma bomber" I assume you mean Timothy McVeigh, who was not a terrorist. He was a badly misguided revolutionary.
Is there a difference?
McVeigh and the Terrorists used the same actions to the same ends. Even if the reasons differed, the ends were the same. Therefore: If it quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.
Re:So, basically, Stop Brown People For Being Brow (Score:4, Funny)
You both misspelled "fruitcake".
Re:So, basically, Stop Brown People For Being Brow (Score:5, Insightful)
If they got their asses kicked they're terrorists.
If they win and get to write the history books they're revolutionaries.
Re: (Score:2)
I can quack like a duck.
I am probably a duck?
That might explain my hunt and peck typing and why I can't stop shitting on people's cars..
Re: (Score:2)
McVeigh was a criminal, as are Al Qaeda. One uses terror to frighten countries into shooting themselves in the foot (e.g. Patriot Act) to collapse in on themselves, the other actually wanted to remove the government and start over fresh.
Motives are the difference. Bombing civilians is a heinous crime, but the ideology behind it is
Re:So, basically, Stop Brown People For Being Brow (Score:4, Insightful)
"My cause is just, therefore I may do anything, for ends justify the means."
Sounds about the same to me. Al-Qaida, McVeigh, and torture supporters in the government and military are all the same, and the proper name for what they are is "scum".
Re:So, basically, Stop Brown People For Being Brow (Score:5, Insightful)
From Webster [merriam-webster.com]:
Main Entry: terrorism
Pronunciation: \ter-r-i-zm
Function: noun
Date: 1795
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
You can call yourself a revolutionary if you go after military targets, but if you are deliberately launching attacks on civilian targets to affect change in government, then you are the very definition of a terrorist.
Re:So, basically, Stop Brown People For Being Brow (Score:5, Insightful)
The Terrorists are often Brown People.
And when the terrorists find a disaffected white nutcase who wants to go down in history as the world's biggest terrorist, he'll walk right by the line of PhD students who are being strip searched for having the wrong skin color.
Re:So, basically, Stop Brown People For Being Brow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
Just like a certain law enforcement agency where middle management can't spare the time to look into a report from one of their field agents about guys with Arabic-sounding names that want to learn how to fly airplanes but aren't interested in "How to Land 101". BUT, we need the patriot act to keep us safe.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And it'll happen despite a warning from the guy's father or other intelligence sources all because two intelligence agencies can't figure out the meaning of the word "sharing,"
You are far too optimistic. We've all heard how the underwear bomber's father reported him and no one paid attention. Well, that's not true. They DID pay attention and they actively chose to let him keep his american visa. It wasn't a mistake, they did it on purpose. This information was released by Patrick F. Kennedy, undersecretary for management at the State Department. [detnews.com]
Therefore all these "security changes" are 100% bullshit. No amount of hassling passengers will make any difference as long as the
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So, basically, Stop Brown People For Being Brow (Score:5, Insightful)
And when the terrorists find a disaffected white nutcase who wants to go down in history as the world's biggest terrorist, he'll walk right by the line of PhD students who are being strip searched for having the wrong skin color.
The way you say this, anyone would think that the terrorist threats faced today are being organised by a very clever, very resourceful organisation that can do more or less whatever it wants.
There is no fucking chance whatsoever this applies to Al Qaida. Frankly, if it was, we'd have seen far more attacks and they'd have been far more successful. As it stands, the US and the UK have had precisely one major co-ordinated, successful attack each. Here in the UK we've also had a handful of utterly pointless attacks (come on - what idiot decided that driving a car full of gas cylinders into an airport in Glasgow, of all places, would result in anything more than a heavy kick in the head and/or testicles?).
If you want an example of what happens when you have a clever, resourceful terrorist organisation attacking you, look at the IRA in the 1970's/80's.
Re: (Score:2)
What? The TSA hires mainly brown people? That’s news to me...
Re:So, basically, Stop Brown People For Being Brow (Score:5, Insightful)
[T]he Obama administration is abandoning its policy of using nationality alone to determine which US-bound international air travelers should be subject to additional screening...
They're actually now trying to correlate security screening with specific, known information about actual suspects, rather than saying, "So you're from Pakistan? Would you mind coming with me, sir?" The new policies will be far from perfect, I'm sure, but they seem more sensible than a "random" screening based solely on nationality.
As to the body scanners, I have a hard time being bothered by this.
Every time technology makes another leap forward, we have to reclaim the Fourth Amendment, and often we have to reclaim the entire Bill of Rights, because technology gives [the authorities] powers that were not envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
Fair enough, but I think the founding fathers would also have had a difficult time envisioning several dozen unrelated people climbing into a flying metal tube to cross the ocean in a matter of hours. They also probably didn't foresee the rise of ideologies that make those flying tubes attractive targets for persons armed with concealable explosive devices. Saying that the Founding Fathers were poorly-versed in 21st century technology and geopolitics doesn't mean much by itself. I'm willing to bet the passengers on any of the airplanes that have been subject to terrorist attacks in the past few years would have been willing to undergo a full body scan if it meant the bad guy couldn't get on the plane with them. Full body scanners also don't care what country you're from, if that means anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually
[T]he Obama administration is abandoning its policy of using nationality alone to determine which US-bound international air travelers should be subject to additional screening...
(emphasis mine)
Looks like they're still screening by just nationality, but adding additional factors. I'm thinking "look for guys with big beards, funny accents, or towels on their head" :/
Re:So, basically, Stop Brown People For Being Brow (Score:5, Insightful)
And the Founding Fathers wouldn't have gone the "Let's trade our hard-won freedom for the empty promise of security!" route, either. They'd see those flying tin cans and say "How could a few men with small knives (or other blade-like instruments) take over an entire plane full of citizens when the citizens aboard should be more than capable of preventing such an attempt?" Then they would look at the way the general populace is being disarmed and say "This is exactly the opposite of what we intended!" when told that they could not carry their primary means of self-defense everywhere they went. They would look at how the people they did all of this for are giving everything they argued and fought so hard for away in order to feel safe, instead of actually being prepared and equipped to ensure that safety.
The "they couldn't have known" and "they didn't foresee" defenses are just a way of ignoring the original intent and then claiming that "now" is so much more different from "then" and that dealing with what affects us "now" was never the intent to begin with. They had boats, those not-so-mythical things called pirates, terrorists, and invading armies back then, and they dealt with them as they encountered them. The only real differences between "now" and "then" is that we can travel between locations faster, we can communicate faster with people farther away, and we have the ability to know what of (in)significance is currently happening in places we never heard of before to people we'll likely never meet in person. Admittedly, the "killing people" thing may have become easier with newer technologies, but so has the "saving people" thing, and sometimes we use the exact same tool(s) to do both. Exactly none of this didn't exist back then in one form or another, but we (as a people) seem so intent on treating "now" in such a different manner as "then" because we can, and not because we must.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Similarly, your thought that the "original intent" should be carried to the end of time argument wears thin. Pirates were often mercenaries of the state and terrorists were pirates. Any thought of an invading army of America makes me chuckle and think that someone's been watching Red Dawn once
Re:So, basically, Stop Brown People For Being Brow (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm... let's see. The SLA in the 1970's. White as well as African-American. The 1st or 2nd largest gun battle between law enforcement and a terrorist organization. 2nd if you count David Koresh et. al. as terrorists.
The KKK. They terrorized African-Americans, Catholics, and Jews since about 1870. Arayan nation and other affiliated groups also have terrorized those who do not agree with them or of different races. Oh yeah, you have to be of true white racial purity to join those groups.
The Weather Underground. White, middle class, college educated, and terrorists.
The Oklahoma City bombers.
The Unibomber.
The women's clinic bombers and doctor killers.
At this point I am more frightened of the uber-radical wingnut neighbor with a gun collection and pent up frustration and rage, than I am of any "camel jockies" or "towel heads" (to use two of the more polite phrases Ive heard over the years).
Charles Manson and friends. They wanted to start a race war, so it could be counted as terrorism. Oh yeah, all white.
Get your facts straight.
Oh man (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
your government is dong
At first I thought this was a typo, but on further reflection...
Re:Oh man (Score:5, Interesting)
The freedoms cost as much as you are going to sacrifice for it. Sacrifice means that you sacrifice something personal for communal good. That act of selflessness is largely incompatible with individualistic basis of American culture.
There are less and less freedoms because there are less and less people who are ready to get serious about getting less and less freedoms. Western culture "ends with a wimper" indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you, other than your assertion that an act of selflessness is "largely incompatible with" our individualistic culture.
I say that because making sacrifices for concepts like freedom and liberty should be motivated by an individual's concern for his/her own children, friends and relatives, as much as anything.
The *real* problem is the apathy you see from people who feel like the problems "don't affect anyone in their circle of friends/family". That tends to continue right up to the point where s
Oblig. First They Came post (Score:2)
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Re:Oblig. First They Came post (Score:4, Funny)
Damn those Protestants. Why don't they protest more?
Re:Oh man (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet ironically we don't seem to be as badly as the United States at the moment. I don't recall being treated like a criminal upon entering New Zealand, nor does any country in Europe. In fact the entry requirements for the United States are now so onerous I won't be going back until they relax: I don't just mean "relax the requirements", I mean the entire United States needs to collectively chill the fuck out.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Then this change should make you happy. Instead of just guessing and doing random crap, that are basing searches on intel.
This is a good thing.
Re:Oh man (Score:4, Insightful)
I don’t get it... how is a piece of paper powerful to keep freedom, that is already imaginary anyway?
Remember that there always were constitution-like basic laws in countries. Even in germany before the Nazis.
If there are no people with power to back it up, it’s worth nothing. But if there are those people, they can just as much back their wishes up without a piece of paper.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh man (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, what? (Score:2, Redundant)
So let's say they have 3000 people on the terrorist watchlist... They expect security staff to know how each of these people look, their age, and travel histories? Is this just a smokescreen to say - "instead of using countries, we're going to profile terrorists." So if you're a 17-28 year old from the middle east who travelled to Pakistan ever, watch out, TSA has your number...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
As long as they aren't permanently logging vast amounts of unique information under the new system, I don't see a problem with it. It's not really any different from stationing a few police or FBI officers at an airport to watch for known criminals. And it's a hell of an improvement over government-mandated racial discrimination.
If they want to do random checks, and the airline/airport approves, well, they can do random checks. I don't see why people expect fourth-amendment protection when they're on som
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(travel history, height/weight specs, etc)
Wait, so terrorists are generally only short, fat, people?
I would say physical characteristic would be the worst set of flags there could be, outside of the politically incorrect skin tone which is marginally useful (at best). I'm sure if we mapped all of the terrorists who ever attempted to do their thing, we'd find a pretty dramatic spread of physical characteristics.
Unless terrorism is truly the disenfranchised vertically challenged trying to overthrow the oppre
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How many people have died in Muslim terrorist attacks?How many in attacks by Christian militia groups in Michigan?
Not many in the grand scheme of things. Getting struck by lightening more than once is probably a greater threat than being killed by Christian extremists (statistically).
Though if you collate all of the Christian, apocalyptic, extremist groups, there is a small, but decent body count as well.
In both cases though, there is a clear threat, and means to prevent that threat from actualizing. We a
Racial profiling (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yesiree, gimme them good ol' days when the TSA just screened all the brown folks, and the police just arrested all the blacks. We don't need no gub'mint peerin' into our lives, us upstandin' citizens!
Re: (Score:2)
"screeners will stop passengers for additional security if they match certain pieces of known intelligence" = carte blanche for profiling by race, religion, ethnicity, etc., especially when the pieces of intelligence are known only to the screeners.
Odds are really good that screeners won't know why. They can't accidentally tell you what they don't know.
So... (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically, they're going to do what they've been depicted as doing in every movie and TV show for the last fifty years: ACTUAL DETECTIVE WORK. Crazy!
Easy workaround (Score:5, Funny)
Simply don't show any form of intelligence and they'll let you pass.
Re:Easy workaround (Score:5, Funny)
don't show any form of intelligence
And they'll offer you a job.
Re: (Score:2)
Fixed it for you...
TSA Beat You To The Punch (Score:2)
Simply don't show any form of intelligence and they'll let you pass.
Nice try, the TSA HR department saw straight through that ruse and followed the lead.
Easier Workaround (Score:2)
Make sure all your processors are made by AMD. From the summary:
The system will be 'much more intel-based,' a senior administration official says, as opposed to brute force.
Clearly, they're only screening people who use Intel processors.
Drug cases (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder how the cases where drugs were found and reported to law enforcement will pan out.
Does consenting to a TSA screening also mean you're consenting to a search? I'm certain someone will attempt to try the unreasonable search and seizure/warrentless search defense.
This troubles me.
Re: (Score:2)
TSA screening is a search. Even though they are searching for things that are a threat to air safety, if they find anything else illegal they can hand you over to the cops. It's called finding something "incidental to a search." No judge will let you raise a 4th amendment defense to this since its already been decided. The state has an overriding interest in air security so they get a limited exception to the 4th amendment. Have a look at the decision in John Gilmore's "free to travel" appeal. He lost
Re: (Score:2)
If you're not a US citizen, you're not protected by the Constitution.
Not according to US Attorney General Eric Holder.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG7lm8Sfbo4 [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"If you're not a US citizen, you're not protected by the Constitution. "
not according to the constitution.
The founding fathers intended the constitution to be applied to all people. Tye practicality of that is another matter.
"...- there's nothing that states they have to let you fly."
How about the fact that tax dollar are used to support them?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That actually flies in the face of two centuries of constitutional law. Just because Bush decided to scribble with crayon on a fine historical document doesn't mean that what was written in ink and blood was changed.
This could be flamebait or insightful, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
"Noticing that 16 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia isn't being racist, it's being minimally observant."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This could be flamebait or insightful, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Noticing that half of all the terrorist attacks on US soil in the last two generations were performed by white people white isn't being racist, it's being minimally observant.
All your statement tells us is that most of the individuals in a single terrorist attack were from the same country which is not insightful, it is fucking obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Afghanistan is Arab? Could have fooled me.
Re: (Score:2)
FDA approval (Score:4, Interesting)
So are these new terahertz scanners FDA approved? FDA has guidelines and limits for any radiation exposure events.
Re:FDA approval (Score:5, Informative)
Is this even fixable? (Score:2, Interesting)
The system is broken: even the experts realize that. Should we be playing with the algorithm, or throwing the whole system out?
If racial profiling doesn't work, what do we do next? Do we keep going with the security theatre, building a divide between "us" and "them", or do we start attacking the causes of terrorism rather than pretending we can do anything about the effects?
You copy the Israelis (Score:2)
The Israelis have trained interrogators, who interview every single human being before they are granted entry into their country. The team is highly professional, and they constantly try to send through their own people with falsified documentation, and if there are any people who are not caught, everyone they passed is terminated from their position.
Forcing everyone to throw away their water and take off their shoes and get body scanned is a surefire way to give everyone a completely false sense of securit
Re: (Score:2)
It's been cheaper for a long time. But without an enemy image, there is no way to propagandize the population in order to suck a trillion dollars in war spending out of their wallets every year, and allow Lockheed and Boeing and Blackwater to take their 20% cut.
If the policy planners in washington had figured out that terrorism was more effective than communism at stoking hysteria and paranoia, we would probably have the same relationship with Russia as we do with China. The only downside is that they are u
**SSSSSSSSS** (Score:5, Interesting)
Am i the only "european, single male in their 30es" who frequently travels on one-way (business class) tickets?
Despite my Airline PLATINUM standard (>100,000 miles/yr), in the past i have had frequently a series of SSSSSSS printed on my boarding pass, which was a sure fire 100% way to get pulled over EVERY SINGLE TIME for a "random" search in the security line.
After a while i just "volunteered" and asked "so, where's the sssspecial line" ?
i got a weird look, showed my boarding pass, and then the usual "oh, sir, you've gotta come with me, you've been randomly selected for additional security screening".
I tried to explain to the folks that they need to smarten up, because if they basically tell me at check-in that i'm the "chosen one" when going through security, i would of course have dumped anything which would be "suspicious" to my friends (with non-SSSS boarding passes).
Unfortunately my honest concerns (and ramblings about randomness and predictability) were usually met by the TSA drones with the famous lack of understanding and common sense.
I'm glad that MAYBE they are actually doing something reasonable, instead of the "security theater" of the last 10 yrs. but then again.... what am i thinking!
Re: (Score:2)
One way with no checked luggage is good for a free "extra ssspecial" search every time, one way alone is probably a flag. Terrorists are likely smart enough to buy return tickets.
Re:**SSSSSSSSS** (Score:5, Interesting)
The return trip was pure security theatre. I carry my electronics on the plane so that no one has to search my checked bag. The TSA person made some sarcastic comment about what I was carrying, but did not really push beyond that. I did not have to explain myself at all. The reason we have TSA people, presumably, is so they have face tot face contact with the passengers and have a conversation to see if everything is kosher, not to create false positives by being sarcastic.
The it was to the body scanner. Evidently one has to hold perfectly still. In other words, if a terrorist wiggles, then the scanner is worthless. I went through twice, they could not tell anything because I have a hard time holding still, and so I had to be searched. The search would not have discovered an underwear device. BTW, the scanner requires much more time to get through than the metal detector, so one needs to increase the lead time from 30 minutes to 2 hours. All in all a useless machine only suited to perverts
As it is TSA is just a jobs program, not that I think that is a bad thing. I have respect for those people going to work everyday and doing what they can. In the US a reals day work now seems to be optional. For instance they could be organizing and attending tea parties while the rest of us working people pays their unemployment and disability benefits. But, if we are to have the TSA, we should fund it to a level that they can be well trained and genuinely effective.
Re:**SSSSSSSSS** (Score:4, Interesting)
Single 27yr-old attractive white male from Alaska (that makes me REALLY white!) here.i have a closely-trimmed beard, nice haircut, nice clothes, and always smile and be very polite with the security folks that deal with me (last thing i want is to piss one of THEM off!).
i get searched EVERY time, even on return-trip tickets.
i either check a large backpack with no carry-ons or take the backpack as a carryon with no checked luggage and i get searched either way.
i must fit SOME profile to be searched so frequently. i cant imagine what, but it doesnt matter too much. i know the drill and its over quickly (two minutes or so), and in japan they dont bother finding a male 'pat-downer' and the security girls reach down the front of my pants to check the zipper or something. maybe thats why i dont complain.
i was leaving seattle for a business trip (with US Army ORDERS, Army ID, etc) a few months back and my business laptop (US Army tagged) was 'suspect.' the girl doing the swabs and questioning was so disinterested in what she was doing that its possible she was asleep the whole time. i also got searched.
i think the problem most people have with the TSA and their screening process are the agents like in my anecdote above. its obvious they dont give a shit, they do a visibly poor job, and in the end its a farce and everyone knows it.
Constitutional issues? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
9/10/01 called, it wants its society back.
(...of course, for that matter, so do I. Sigh.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
" just make the airlines responsible for their own security, then they could decide whether they want the scanners and what types of searches to preform"
If this were to happen, I doubt most people would be ok with it if some airline decided to perform body cavity searches. And rather than vote with their $$, they would sue the airline for being unfair with their invasive security practices.
Re: (Score:2)
At least you'd have the choice of not flying with that airline, if you don't like their policies. Right now your only choice is to not fly at all, because they're all subject to the same gov't-imposed policies.
I think I'd trust an airline's enlightened self-interest over the government's desire to scrutinize and control the people's movements.
Correction (Score:2)
>> Administration officials have said that, in hindsight, the central failure in the attempted bombing of an Amsterdam-to-Detroit flight on Christmas Day, involved inadequate sharing of information."
I thought that the central failure in the attempted bombing was that the bomb did not go off and burned the guy's pants instead.
-dZ.
Sharing of Information (Score:2)
in hindsight, the central failure in the attempted bombing of an Amsterdam-to-Detroit flight on Christmas Day, involved inadequate sharing of information."
...wow. Good thing we didn't know that EIGHT YEARS AGO.
The new way to increase privacy violations? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do it to everyone and it's "fair." Do it to a select few and it's harassment. It's not harassment when it's based on observation. Observation is ...? Well, how can it be done without invasion of privacy?
You are leaving the American sector. (Score:2)
"Every time technology makes another leap forward, we have to reclaim the Fourth Amendment, and often we have to reclaim the entire Bill of Rights, because technology gives [the authorities] powers that were not envisioned by the Founding Fathers."
The border crossing - the military check point - has never been a good place to assert your rights to anything.
Least of all to an immunity from search and seizure.
Inadequate Sharing of Information? (Score:2)
You mean IGNORING of information. How much more intel do you need to screen someone when their own father calls in and says "hey, my son is on a flight to your country, and he's been hanging out with known terrorists. you might want to question him"?? That was simply a case of there was a legitimate threat, and PLE
Haven't found much? Gee, I wonder why. (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow. Could that possibly be because drug smuggling is not that uncommon, but shitheads actually attempting to bring down airliners really is? Seriously, in the last decade how many attempts HAVE there been, out of the hundreds of millions of passengers flying during that same period? How many hand grenades and Popiel pocket nukes [ronco.com] did they expect to find, anyway?
"Security theater" beliefs aside, and I'm
| sed -e "s/en/w/" (Score:2)
Something's fishy... (Score:4, Insightful)
So, I was in Denver recently, and was in a HUGE collection of people at the security line. They had it routed back and forth, to the point where 1000 people were standing in an area maybe 30-40m on a side.
If you want to blow yourself up, disrupt air travel, and kill a shitload of people, the security line's a better place to do it. (The lethal radius of a 20kg bomb is pretty big, as I understand it...) And I'm sure the analysts know this, and insist on huge security lines anyway -- because it's wonderful theater.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC, some countries like Brazil apply the principle of reciprocity. I.e. they fingerprint US travelers, but not travelers from the EU, simply because Brazilians don't get fingerprinted in the EU but get fingerprinted in the US. But I may be wrong, as I don't recall exactly where I've read or heard that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hrm, I thought I read that they were introducing fingerprinting on exit about a year ago or so... Where you'd have to turn in your entry form to a kiosk in the terminal (rather than to the airline), and take fingerprints to verify your identity... I could be wrong though, or perhaps it just hasn't rolled out yet.
Re: (Score:2)
He came by truck from Mexico, the procedures are much more relaxed.
But joking aside, isn't that a bit late to prevent somebody blowing up his underpants flying _to_ the fingerprint kiosk?
Re: (Score:2)
Name one other context where the authorities take fingerprints. Hm? Kinda hard, isn't it? Or maybe your standards are just way too low for your own good.
- Buying a machine gun
- Getting a concealed carry permit
- UK requires fingerprints for passports
- Getting a job as a teacher
- Getting a job as a firefighter
- Getting a job as a cop
- Getting a job at a daycare
You are only treated like a criminal when you are arrested, that is your fingerprints go on file at the FBI CJIS. When you get a criminal background check as a visitor of the US or as a resident applying for a job you are not treated like a criminal because once they have compared your fingerp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More like the Tree of Liberty needs a little blood, whether it be metaphorical or not.
"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punish