National Opt-Out Day Against Virtual Strip Searches 647
An anonymous reader writes in about a protest called for the busiest airline travel day of the year. "An activist opposed to the new invasive body scanners in use at airports around the country just designated Wednesday, Nov. 24 as a National Opt-Out Day. He's encouraging airline passengers to decline the TSA's technological strip searches en masse on that day as a protest against the scanners, as well as the new 'enhanced pat-downs' inflicted on refuseniks. 'The goal of National Opt-Out Day is to send a message to our lawmakers that we demand change,' reads the call to action at OptOutDay.com, set up by Brian Sodegren. 'No naked body scanners, no government-approved groping. We have a right to privacy, and buying a plane ticket should not mean that we're guilty until proven innocent.' The US Airline Pilots Association and other pilot groups have urged their members to avoid the scanners and have also condemned the new pat-down policy as humiliating to pilots. They've advised pilots who don't feel comfortable undergoing pat-downs in front of passengers to request they be conducted in a private room. Any pilots who don't feel comfortable after undergoing a pat-down have been encouraged to 'call in sick and remove themselves from the trip.'"
A non-partisan no-brainer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A non-partisan no-brainer (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe I'm just shamelessly immodest, but I support these scanners if they can be shown to speed up the process of checking in. People need to get over being seen naked - do they avoid the doctor's office as well?
You are shamelessly immodest. For a lot of people, being naked is an emotional thing, and while they can suck it up when it needs to happen with a doctor, they should not be forced to disrobe for some random TSA employee who really has no job qualifications at all.
We live in a world where airplanes attract way more than their fair share of terrorism - we need to accept that fact
Really? When last I checked, terrorists were also attacking federal buildings, abortion clinics, and meat packing plants, right here in the United States. Worldwide, terrorists seem to be attacking markets, schools, government buildings, and so forth. Airplanes are a bit rare in terms of terrorist attacks, probably because of the large amount of security and the difficulty in pulling off a successful attack.
We can't pretend that people won't try to bomb airplanes, even if there are much easier ways to kill people
You know what would be a really easy target? That giant line right near the security checkpoint at the airport. A terrorist looking to kill a lot of people would probably choose that target over an airplane, we practically handed it over to them. Attacking security checkpoints is not exactly unheard of; it happens in the middle east fairly regularly.
Terrorists don't go after low-hanging fruit... they go after the spectacular.
Completely false, take a look at the reports of attacks in Israel, Pakistan, India, Iraq, Afghanistan, and any of the other of dozens of countries that have problems with terrorists. Take a look at the terrorist activities here in the United States some time, and see how much low hanging fruit is attacked.
Re:A non-partisan no-brainer (Score:5, Informative)
It's only a "gross violation" if you are forced to do it. There is an opt-out.
Yeah, and in some cases opting out means being ejected from the airport without being allowed to board your flight, and even threats of $10,000 civilian fines. Here are just a few recent reported incidents:
TSA encounter at SAN [blogspot.com]
Woman Says She Was Cuffed And Booted From Airport For Questioning Body Scanners [consumerist.com]
Pregnant Traveler: TSA Screeners Bullied Me Into Full-Body Scan [consumerist.com]
Even pilots are being ejected from airports for refusing to submit to the scanners:
Pilot who refused body scan at Memphis International blasts TSA security [commercialappeal.com]
Sorry, but if even a pilot can't opt out of going through the scanners then either something is severely broken in the system or the whole opt-out argument is complete bunk.
The pilot thing shows how stupid it really is (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see why there is a security check for pilots at all. I mean we want to carefully check their identity, we want to make sure that they are who they say they are of course. However after their ID has been established, they should be allowed to go on about their business with no more check. Why? Because such a check is totally worthless. Pilots have hands on the controls of the aircraft, they could crash it and kill all aboard if they wanted. Further, many of them have guns that they carry. Since 9/11 they have been allowed to get certified and have a gun in the cockpit. Many opt to because you get paid a bit extra if you do.
You have to trust the pilots, that is just how it goes. As such once you've identified them as the pilots who should be on the flight, other security checks are worthless.
That pilots are subject to the same arduous security checks as passengers just proves that it is security theater, and nothing that is really useful. They aren't concerned with actual security, just a theater that justifies their jobs, and that they like being the tough guys who get to be in charge.
Re:The pilot thing shows how stupid it really is (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't see why there is a security check for pilots at all. I mean we want to carefully check their identity, we want to make sure that they are who they say they are of course. However after their ID has been established, they should be allowed to go on about their business with no more check. Why? Because such a check is totally worthless. Pilots have hands on the controls of the aircraft, they could crash it and kill all aboard if they wanted.
As a counterpoint, pilots frequently 'deadhead', or ride in a jumpseat from one airport to another so that they can get to the particular plane that they're supposed to fly. In such cases, the pilot is no more than a passenger, albeit one paid by the airline to fly - they do not have their hands on the controls of that plane. Furthermore, a pilot who flies a cargo-only prop-based puddlejumper may be deadheading on a 787, so the fact that they'll eventually have their hands on the controls of a plane may b
But how would that matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
If a terrorist successfully impersonates a pilot, they don't need to have anything on their person. They have hands on the flight controls and thus can crash the plane. Your life is, in a very real way, in the hands of the pilots on a plane. If they steer the plane to crash, it'll crash the automated systems can't override them. As such it doesn't matter if they also have a knife or something like that because they have control of the plane anyhow.
So the security check for pilots isn't the same as regular people. For them it is an identity check, you need to make sure they are who they claim they are. That makes sense, and is done as far as I know, probably by the airlines themselves. However once identity is established, further checks are stupid.
It would be like the Secret Service checking the Marine guards for weapons. Of COURSE they have weapons, that's the point. What you check isn't if they have a gun, you check to make sure they are who they are supposed to be.
So check the pilot's identity in any way useful, do whatever is needed to make sure they are the person they claim to be. However don't be stupid about the rest. They are the pilot, you have to trust them. If they cannot be trusted, I don't want their hands on the yoke no matter how sure you are they don't have nail clippers or shampoo on their person.
Re:A non-partisan no-brainer (Score:5, Insightful)
It's only a "gross violation" if you are forced to do it. There is an opt-out.
Your opt-out is to have someone actually touch you in a way that anywhere else (save while under arrest) would result in punching or macing the attacker. This isn't because you failed a non-invasive screening procedure, it's because you don't want to take your clothes off.
Maybe I'm just shamelessly immodest, but I support these scanners if they can be shown to speed up the process of checking in.
It is literally an order of magnitude slower than standard screening. You have to stand still with your arms raised for at least 15 second after they start the scan. Then you need to stand and wait for the "all clear" over the radio. Or you need to wait for someone to take like a minute to make a rucus about you opting out and then explain the procedure you're about to go through.
We live in a world where airplanes attract way more than their fair share of terrorism - we need to accept that fact. We can't pretend that people won't try to bomb airplanes, even if there are much easier ways to kill people.
Nobody has proved that an undergarment bomb can be effective at bringing down an airliner. Besides what stops an up the ass or breast implant based device?
Re:A non-partisan no-brainer (Score:5, Informative)
do they avoid the doctor's office as well?
If you have to strip naked when you go to the doctor, there's something wrong and you should get another doctor.
We live in a world where airplanes attract way more than their fair share of terrorism - we need to accept that fact
The US hasn't really had any significant experience of terrorism. We had it for decades in the UK, thanks to the Irish Republicans (and indeed the various loyalist groups, although they mostly kept themselves to NI without going into the rest of the UK). We didn't find it necessary to strip-search everyone who went into a hotel, or onto a train.
Re:Simplified sound bites (Score:4, Interesting)
A dermatologist might very well need to see every inch of you.
Although when I went to a new dermatologist and he asked me to strip my response was, "I'd prefer not to."
He shrugged, said 'ok', and just examined me above the waist.
(don't ask what I was wearing below the waist.. lets just say I hadn't planned on a full body examination for a neck issue)
Re:A non-partisan no-brainer (Score:5, Insightful)
We live in a world where airplanes attract way more than their fair share of terrorism..
No we don't. We live in a world where cowards like yourself believe that despite the massive weight of evidence.
Re:A non-partisan no-brainer (Score:4, Informative)
Wow, that whole post reads like a drug-induced hallucination. Every bit of it is false. However, I'll just comment on this part:
"Terrorists don't go after low-hanging fruit... they go after the spectacular. Otherwise they'd be bombing suburban bus and train routes, malls, and other places which are almost impossible to police."
Um, yeah, that happens, like, every day in Israel, the greater Middle East, Pakistan and Afghanistan? Three days ago a car bomb blew up a building in the center of Karachi (Pakistan's largest city). Link. [washingtontimes.com] Two weeks ago a bomber killed 20 people in Istanbul's tourist and shopping center. Link. [nydailynews.com] The last attempted terrorist bombing in the U.S., in May, was in the shopping/entertainment area of Times Square. Link. [delta-optimist.com]
Re:A non-partisan no-brainer (Score:5, Insightful)
But I'm glad you brought up Israel. Israel is perhaps the only country more despised in the Arab world than the US, and yet Israel has never had anyone blow up an airplane. Have you ever been through Israeli airport screening? There is a very good reason for it, and it has (so far) worked flawlessly.
It sounds to me like you are using Israel as an example of why we should use the scanners. I've read in various news outlets that Isreal doesn't use the "naked scanners" because they don't work [examiner.com] because they are ineffective and invasive. I've been through the Tel Aviv airport three times this year (and twice in through land crossings); I can say without a moment's hesitation that they are far less physically invasive than our TSA. No doubt Israeli security is very good... they absolutely do not fuck around with security, and they don't use the standard TSA tactics. That should tell you something.
I think you're right though - we should emulate Israel as they are far better at security than us. Step one: get rid of the kabuki dance and employ measures that are actually effective.
Bonus quote: "I don’t know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines (they are useless). I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747, that is why we have not put body scans our airport." - Rafi Sela, Israeli security expert who designed the security in Israel’s largest airport.
Re:A non-partisan no-brainer (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A non-partisan no-brainer (Score:4, Insightful)
It's times like this that Slashdot SERIOUSLY needs a +1000, Totally Pwned moderation.
Regardless of whether or not I have any opinion for or against the bill, you win this thread hands down.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no violation of privacy as far as laws are concerned. This has nothing to do with liberty, as any true Libertarian would tell you.
When ever I hear people spouting their gibberish reasons to protect these scanners, all I hear are terrorists laughing. It's strange that terrorists AND governments are sometimes in a win-win situation and make strange bedfellows. They both want to restrict your movement and slowly erode your freedoms. The real noodle shaker is being reminded who originally trained, funded and geared up many of these terrorists in the first place.
Re:A non-partisan no-brainer (Score:5, Insightful)
No one is forcing you to go through a scanner but yourself.
That's hardly true. If it was one specific Airline that had the scanners then I would agree with you, but it not, it is the actual airports meaning you have no choice.
For example: If I wanted to travel from London to New York the options are a 300 pound flight taking around 7 hours or a trans-Atlantic ferry which taking 8 days and costing 1500 for a shared cabin or 2000 pounds for a single cabin. Are you seriously going to tell me me this is a viable and competitive alternative transport arrangement?
I hole heartedly disagree with you, people are indeed being forced through these scanners.
Re:A non-partisan no-brainer (Score:5, Insightful)
...the TSA is a government agency, but you are electing to travel by air on a private carrier.
This has nothing to do with liberty, as any true Libertarian would tell you.
As a true Libertarian, I can tell you that you're wrong.
Neither I, nor the airline, hired these goons. If I'm flying a on a private carrier, through locally-owned airports (usually owned by the county or city, NEVER owned by the Federal government), the airline should be free to hire their own security force and institute their own procedures. They are not.
It's entirely about liberty. And the TSA is destroying those private airlines' business by making it unpleasant to fly.
Doesn't the Federal government own the majority of Amtrak (only passenger train company left in the US)? Interesting that they're making it hell for the airlines to exist. (The conflict of interest reminds me of the Federal government owning a large stake in General Motors and then causing a huge PR problem for Toyota, their largest competition, almost immediately. And it's not about foreign or domestic: both are manufactured in the US.)
How long until a terrorist targets a train? For that matter, a terrorist wouldn't need to get past security, all they'd have to do is target the airport itself, including the enormous line of people waiting to get through security. This entire fiasco is a waste of money, and it's destroying both our citizens' expectation of privacy and the airline industry at the same time.
Since you have to raise your hands... (Score:5, Funny)
and take off your belt while going through the scanner, my plan is to wear loose pants and go commando.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm leaning towards wearing a kilt.
Re:Since you have to raise your hands... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm leaning towards wearing a kilt.
I have done this. Not in the US, but the are a couple of practical issues:
1) kilt pins, stow them in your luggage and make sure to stay out of wind until you can out it back on. Three inches of pointy metal won't make you popular, and the pin weighs down the apron part of the kilt, so, use your imagination
2) the buckles, most of my kilts have 2-3 buckles made of metal
3) the sporran, mine has a chain and metal snaps
4) sitting in an airplane seat in a kilt is a tricky issue, especially if you are a little rounder like me and want to be sure not to give a show
5) don't even think of the dagger in your sock, and even the kilt flash on your socks have buckles
6) depending on what you wear for footwear, unlacing your shoes/boots could be tricky. I wear Doc Martens with my kilt, so there is some work involved.
7) my utilikilts have about 10 snaps. All metal.
However, the pat down procedure could be hilarious ... Just hoist up the kilt and show the whole damned airport. Of course, that will get you arrested for a different reason.
Happy kilting.
Meet "The Resistance" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Meet "The Resistance" (Score:5, Informative)
Their counter resistance is a threat of a $10,000 civil suit after their own agents tell you to leave the airport: http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html [blogspot.com]
Be safer than sorry when it comes to cancer (Score:5, Interesting)
Why just do this on one day only when you can make this your default choice? I'd rather be safe than sorry when it comes to cancer. And I dont much like being treated like a naughty child by the TSA or whoever either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the TSA is counting on most people being to shy and hurried to make this their default choice. Planning ahead to send a message will help more people clear those hurdles.
Re:Be safer than sorry when it comes to cancer (Score:5, Insightful)
Agree with all of that. But the point of civil disobedience [wikipedia.org] is not to make life immediately more comfortable for yourself. Home of the brave, indeed.
Go further (Score:3, Insightful)
False dichotomy (Score:5, Insightful)
Won't work (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Won't work (Score:5, Insightful)
"Trying to annoy the TSA for a day will do absolutely nothing. If you want to end these policies, refuse to fly until they're gone."
Totally disagree. Organized public action is necessary to get results.
The point isn't to annoy the TSA so much. The point is to get the other passengers thinking about and discussing the issue. (Website's 1st line: "OptOutDay.com is an educational outreach campaign, designed to get people to better understand what they are now consenting to when they purchase a plane ticket.") Private, invisible, personal non-purchases will not serve to publicize the issue among the electorate.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's about it. My wife and I tried taking amtrak. Its like how air travel used to be. There was an obvious security presence, but not even a metal detector between you and boarding- and this was at Union Station in Chicago. Not to mention the seats were larger and you had more legroom on board, plus there were two three-pronged outlets so i could keep my phone charged and watch some videos on it.
For us, if its domestic travel, rail is a no-brainer now. Even if high speed rail takes a while to finally c
Yep, there are four things to do (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Stop flying. I realize this may be hard, but in most cases it is possible. If it is truly impossible, like your work requires it, ok fine but then you just kinda have to roll with what happens. However for just about anyone else you can stop flying. Doesn't mean you can't vacation or visit family, just means you will have to drive. It'll work, really it will. When I was a kid, my parents almost always drove us out to the grandparents place because of cost. I didn't enjoy it, but it was fine.
2) Let the airlines know you have stopped flying, and why. You may have noticed the government thinks the airline industry is rather important. They have bailed them out in the past. This could be because they consider it of strategic importance, could be because the airlines have good lobbyists, etc. Whatever the reason or combination of reasons, they listen and that's what matters. So if you make it clear to them that you are refusing to fly because of the TSA, they'll take notice. One person won't do anything alone, but if more than a few do it, they'll care. Make sure to include things like your frequent flier number and dates you traveled last year so they know you do use their service, and can see you aren't.
3) Write your senators and representative and let them know you find this unacceptable, and that this is an issue that will decide your vote. Write a well reasoned letter explaining why this is not ok, and ask what they intend to do about it. You will very likely get a reply (from a staffer of course but it is still their position). Again, what one person says doesn't matter a whole lot but a bunch of people will make them take notice since politicians have to care about being reelected first and foremost and if their constituency is pissed, they have to deal with it. Goes double if they have pressure from the airlines as well.
4) Actually vote on it. If your representatives say "We think the TSA is fine we aren't doing anything," vote for their challenger. Perhaps when they are running even make a campaign contribution, doesn't have to be large $20 should suffice, along with a letter expressing your support for them so long as they will work to fix/get rid of the TSA.
You cannot expect change over night. However if people who are pissed off start doing this, change will come, one way or another. The TSA gets away with its stupidity due to apathy more or less. People just go along with their shit so it is an issue congress doesn't have to care about. If people tell congress it is a problem, then it will become a problem for congress.
How to stop the TSA (Score:4, Informative)
We need volunteers to:
1) stand at the TSA line and hand out leaflets explaining why the TSA is sucks.
2) get interrogated by TSA officers and removed from the airport.
3) try to fly and find they're on the no-fly list.
4) sue.
And people to fund this effort.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
NOWHERE in any employment contract that I have see can an employer FORCE you to consent to having "nearly naked" images taken of you, force you to be repeatedly exposed to harmful radiation, or force you to be sexually molested.
Most people are empoyees-at-will, which means if you don't like the job assignment, they are free to fire you. That doesn't mean you shouldn't stand up for what you believe in, but be prepared to face the consequences.
Conservative issue too. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures.
This is a prime example of where "if you do nothing wrong; then you have nothing to worry about" is shown to be bullshit.
These airport scanners and pat downs dishonor our troops and everyone who has ever died fighting for our country!
We are supposed to be the home of the free and the brave, let's act like it! The Europeans don't do this. They don't even allow the scanners! Are they braver and more free than we are?! It sure looks like it!
I think everyone on both sides can agree, this is just too much!
Re:Conservative issue too. (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps the new motto ought to be: Land of the sheep, home of the scared?
US paranoia has reached an incredible level. Yesterday I was in Madrid Barajas airport to travel to Liverpool, and there were automatic announcements advising passengers should turn up at the gate for US-bound flights an hour and a half before the boarding time of the aircraft to make it though enhanced security. If you have luggage to check I suspect you now have to turn up at the airport 3.5 to 4 hours before the actual departure time for a US bound flight.
Re:Conservative issue too. (Score:5, Insightful)
At this stage, most democracies around the world are more free than the US.
This cognitive dissonance of declaring yourselves the "land of the free, home of the brave" is quite astonishing given that:
How the hell are you people not making a bigger noise about these three egregious violations of your liberty?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The first one is a check on the power of the judiciary - and the judiciary's reluctance to acknowledge its own mistakes. It's based on the notion that most of us would rather have a few criminals go free than allow any innocent people to be imprisoned. A governor's or President's commutation or pardon is often the last recourse for the wrongfully convicted.
And note that Libby, criminal that he is, wasn't pardoned; Bush merely commuted his sentence. This was one of the things that drove a wedge between Bu
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Conservative issue too. (Score:5, Informative)
The Europeans don't do this. They don't even allow the scanners!
Actually the Europeans do allow scanners, and claim that 95% of passengers approve of them:
Manchester Airport body scanners in all three terminals [bbc.co.uk]
Besides, if an international airline flight originates abroad and lands in the US, then the TSA forces the originating airport to jump through all sorts of security theater hoops. Back in 2004 I flew to New Zealand & Australia. My flight back was from Brisbane to San Diego. At the Brisbane airport the flight departed from the very last gate in one of the concourses. I got there a couple hours early due to the timing of my connecting flight, so I went to the gate, sat down, and started reading a book. About 2 hours before the flight a group of about 5 security agents showed up and had everybody leave the departure area - moving to the next-to-last gate in the concourse. Once our departure area was vacant they roped it off, put on rubber gloves, and started searching the entire area. They searched under the seats in the departure lounge, inside the trash bins, around the gate agents desk, etc. Once they had swept the gate area all but one went on board the aircraft and I assume did a fulls sweep of it as well. After that was done they allowed passengers back into the waiting area, but they screened our passports as we returned. I asked one of the screeners what this was all about, and they told me that it was solely because the destination of the flight was inside the USA and therefore USA regulations required the additional screening.
Anybody with even a tiny bit of intelligence could see how useless all this security theater was. If I was a terrorist and wanted to hide a bomb in the airport I'd simply hide it in the waiting area of the next gate and detonate it when the security sweep is going on since all the passengers would now be in that waiting area. Or if I was going to smuggle weapons or anything else on board the plane then I'd have them hidden elsewhere in the concourse for me to pick them up. Unless the screeners search the ENTIRE concourse then a sweep of just one departure lounge is a complete waste. But it was a requirement forced on them by the USA.
Re:Conservative issue too. (Score:4, Informative)
Note that the English are not entirely European... so they tend to do things differently than the rest of Europe do.
Also known as... (Score:4, Funny)
Also known as "National Get-Added-To-The-No-Fly-List Day"
so what's to prevent (Score:3, Interesting)
People from simply removing all of their clothing when they are "hand searched"? Or demanding that a LEO be present at the search? Or demanding that the search be video'd? If the search is "public", then can someone tape it? Or getting the name of the employees who search you?
By the way, where did that 'bagger come from from up thread? What a parrot.... Prove a negative, indeed....
HOW TO END TSA NONSENSE AND BE A GOOD AMERICAN! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:HOW TO END TSA NONSENSE AND BE A GOOD AMERICAN! (Score:5, Informative)
Children are allowed and encouraged to cry.
You mean sort of like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TCHSGvNwRY [youtube.com]
I seriously doubt too many parents will let their children get traumatized like this when they realize what a TSA pat-down of a small child will likely result in.
Re:HOW TO END TSA NONSENSE AND BE A GOOD AMERICAN! (Score:5, Interesting)
Put your children in T-shirts that say "The Federal Government is afraid of me" or "The government thinks I'm a terrorist."
Time for a new line of clothing products (Score:4, Funny)
I think I'll start manufacturing a line of undergarments that have metal threads woven into them with sayings like "I do not consent to invasive searches", "TSA scanners are a violation of my 4th Amendment rights", etc.
I wonder what the TSA response would be if they started seeing people wearing underwear, etc. that effectively blocked the scanners from seeing ones "naughty bits" and possibly also included slogans like these?
Please Scrap the TSA and start over (Score:5, Insightful)
The TSA has yet to catch a single terrorist before they attempted to commit a crime. Shoe-tosses, liquid bans, enhanced pat-downs, body scanners, and all the other reactive measures implemented by this agency ignore the simple fact that the FAA red teams still have no problems whatsoever to penetrate airport security zones at will. Why would a determined terrorist be any less able to do so?
Given that neither scanners nor pat downs can detect body-cavity contraband, the argument that terrorists cannot carry enough contraband into aircraft at this point to be dangerous is simply absurd. Plus, the TSA has not allocated any additional space to open up more parallel lines of entry into airports. So, all these scanners do is slow down the rate of passage to the point where massive security lines have become more inviting targets than aircraft themselves (Remember Rome/Vienna 1985?).
Lastly, please consider the very real situation in most airports where the so-called porno-scanners are regularly shut down during peak travel periods for the reasons given above. If it's that simple to bypass a scanner, then having the scanners there in the first place is completely pointless. Any terrorist worth his/her salt would simply observe the usual travel/security patterns and plan accordingly.
I always elect for a pat-down screening simply because I do not trust the statements made by the TSA re: the radiation levels being safe and some radiologists seem to agree. What I found particularly interesting in the context of one screening experience is the language used by the TSA - "opt-out". No, I didn't opt-out of security screening, I opted for an alternative screening procedure that is arguably safer since the gloves that the TSA folk wear are also tested for explosive residue. Language is important and the way the TSA is using it is contrary to what is actually going on.
Given the extremes that the TSA has gone to lie to the public (example: we don't save the pictures, except for the 35,000+ we sent to a private contractor), the arrogance that they treat the flying public with (the constant yelling at checkpoints), and the sheer ineffectiveness of the agency at meeting its objectives makes me conclude that the better approach is to scrap the agency, return its employees into the pools of privately-contracted companies that used to do airport security, and accept that 100% safety in flying is simply not possible.
ALWAYS OPT-OUT - for your health (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone here suggested that "people need to get over being seen naked". I can't find that comment to respond to it because it has (rightfully) been modded into oblivion, so I'll post this as a general response: some of us don't care about being seen naked. Hell, if people are so concerned that I might be smuggling a bomb under my penis (it's not *that* big), I'd go naked all the time; I don't care. The only thing that would bother me is the cold. What *does* bother me is that there are serious health concerns with the scanning machines [npr.org]. I don't know about you, but I've known cancer patients. I've seen some die. It's not pretty, and we shouldn't have to sacrifice our liberty or our health just to FEEL "safe". If anyone needs to "get over" something, the original poster needs to grow a pair and stop being so scared that he's willing to sell out his own country and sacrifice his health to FEEL "safe".
Body Scanning Machines (Score:3, Interesting)
I do not fly anymore, because from what my friends tell me, if a TSA agent did some of the things that are patently criminal to half the guys crotches and ladies breasts, I would give the individual a knuckle sandwich.
After which they arrest me, I would try to do the same to the pompous judge who fined me.
There is absolutely no way I am going through a body scanner, unless they put a bullet between my eyes.
Then they can willy nilly my corpse through the thing as many times as they want.
-Hack
Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Please provide a list of all terrorists caught by TSA to date. Thanks.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm willing to bet that list is smaller than the list of terrorists who didn't get on a plain for fear of having their ass kicked by Joe Public when they attempt something.
Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (Score:5, Informative)
Osama Bin Laden has won.
Read the ridiculous treatment of this upstanding citizen who stood up to the TSA. He wrote a very interesting account of the abuse the TSA is doing.
An excerpt: 'I looked him straight in the eye and said, "if you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested."' [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For my job, once I was charged with putting together war game scenarios. In one imaginary game I created, I had a 'terrorist' group completely controlled by another 'imaginary country'. In the situation, the terrorist group destroyed a target of supreme U.S. importance. Our country spent the next 10 years fighting this 'terrorist' group. In the process we virtually bankrupted the country, and eroded all the freedoms that we were supposedly fighting for. In the end it was revealed who the real country c
Solve the fucking problem: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? Because the hole in our security that the terrorists identified and used was that heavy aircraft make excellent kinetic strike warheads. In order to exploit this, they must obtain control of the aircraft. If we
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You think the terrorists wouldn't be happy just to blow the plane up? They're willing to suicide bomb a market place and kill maybe a dozen people. Making a plane with over a hundred people go ka-boom would be a fine terrorist outcome, even if it were over the middle of Kansas.
Re:Solve the fucking problem: (Score:4, Informative)
Likely there would be some muttering over the crater that was Mecca
If you think that is a possible scenario, your grasp of international politics is somewhere weaker than my ten year old daughter's.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Flamebait, seriously? This is the only logical comment I've read so far!
Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Discouraged from boarding planes and encouraged to bomb subways. Bombing subways can in fact be even more harmful since it can disable an entire subway line until the damage to the subway can be fixed and the train removed. And with the high volume of traffic that subways get, any kind of security (beyond fare control) is impractical. Given this, protecting planes seems like reinforcing the door with steel while the windows are open.
Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (Score:4, Insightful)
If they're terrorists they should be arrested, not "refused permission to fly".
It shows the system is bullshit. Strip-searching or groping all passengers offends millions for very little if any gain. If the terrorists were discouraged from boarding planes with bombs, they haven't stopped being terrorists and they will find some other way to cause terror.
The problem is the existence of the terrorists. The police, FBI need to be looking for and catching them before they blow up shit. Strip searching everybody at the point of entry to a plane will only cause the terrorist to move their attack to something else. Traditional police and FBI work is geared toward finding the terrorist no matter what their plot is, while the TSA's "enhanced" pat-downs and full body viewing of passengers works only against a single plot, and the terrorists know it. The passengers know that terrorists may want to destroy the plane, so the passengers will fight back. The terrorists know this too.
As Bruce Schneier said, the only useful airline security innovation since 9/11 was the reinforcement of cockpit doors.
Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (Score:4, Insightful)
I carry a magic yeti-repelling stone around with me. I haven't seen a yeti in years so that proves it works!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and all those terrorists saw the TSA policies, and decided to instead live out the rest of their lives peacefully, instead of simply plotting to commit terror in other ways against the thousands of other possible targets.
Come on, really, imagine you were a terrorist, and wanted to destroy the infidel, do you really honestly think you'd be incapable of imagining anything other than an aeroplane as a target? Really? You would just give up, and say "oh dear, the TSA has foiled us completely, praise Allah"
Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (Score:4, Insightful)
Although I am against the full-body scanner and more "intimate" pat-downs, your argument does nothing to strengthen our case. Suppose that on Sep. 8th, 2001 a new directive would have gone out telling all the pilots to lock the cockpit door at all times (during the flight, obviously). Would any terrorist be caught by such a measure? Would we see any benefit from it directly? Would people raise hell over it?* OTOH, in retrospect, we know that such a directive would have prevented a major terrorist attack that still affects our life today.
Who is more of a hero, the person who catches a terrorist in the middle of an attack (AKA Rambo) or the unknown official that wrote directives that prevented the terrorist attack in the first place? Or to put it differently: Smart is someone who gets out of trouble; Wise is someone who does not get into trouble in the first place.
I know, if we give up freedom for temporary security, etc. etc... And I agree with that sentiment, I just don't agree that "list of terrorists caught by TSA to date" is a useful endpoint.
* - BTW, the answers to these questions are no, no and yes, respectively.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hello. I have no fear of terrorists whatsoever. The country I live in have never been a target of terrorists.
We also do not make war on other contries, that might have something to do with it.
In about 10-20 years there will be people in Iraq and Afghanistan who saw their friends/parents/family killed by foreign soldiers. Many of them will want revenge, some of them will be willing to die for it.
I think the best way to protect oneself against terrorists is not to create them in the first place.
Hope this help
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
scapegoat alert.
easy excuse but its bullshit. the muslims can't even get along with themselves; they don't need to (and should not be) blaming others when they need to fix major problems in their own culture.
its just too easy to blame 'the outside'. their leaders use this excuse to their own people but we're supposed to be more enlightened in the west and more free in our thoughts. why, then, do we also fall for the obviously-bogus exuse of 'its all israel and the jews' faults!' ?
muslims have been taught
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Careful when you throw such statements around eg "muslims have been taught to hate jews." I certainly wasn't. I also know plenty of Muslims who grew up in jewish neighborhoods of Brooklyn. Maybe you could be more specific, such as "Saudis have been taught to hate jews" rather than imply that the billions of Muslims are all that way
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This predates the Afghani/Iraqi causes of resentment that the GP refers to. My point was simple - our relationship with the Islamic world has been poor for a long time, for rea
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree that there are more troublesome procedures than "locking the door", but it was just an example for something that does not appear to have any direct benefit, can annoy (some) people and only with the knowledge we have now do we understand its importance. I was just illustrating the point that the OP's request for a "list of terrorist captured by the TSA" is not a useful benchmark for the effectiveness of a procedure, because, as you pointed out, the "lock the door" directive is very helpful while no
Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Please provide a list of all terrorists caught by TSA to date. Thanks.
The UK head of Terror. That's all I know offhand.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're correct. That it what it would meant to _most_ people.
To _rational_ people, it means the TSA approach is not working, We should try something else, like psychological screening. Israel uses it with relatively great results. I have no problem answering a few questions about where I was and where I'm going
http://www.japantoday.com/category/commentary/view/psychology-not-just-technology-needed-for-airport-security
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you traveled in Israel? The security procedure works perfectly (so far), but it requires at least 45 minutes more than the US system and would cost a lot more. The questions are also extremely probing and personal.
If you can't handle the thought of someone seeing you nude, then I'd fully support having the option of an Israeli-style interrogation. I have a feeling you'll feel a lot more "invaded" after the interrogation than the body scan, though. You'll forget the body scan in a few minutes, but you'l
Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (Score:5, Insightful)
> I have no problem answering a few questions about where I was and where I'm going
I do.
Where I've been, where I'm going, and why; are my business, not yours. And unless I, myself, am a suspect of a specific crime; it's no business of law enforcement* either. And if I AM a suspect in that crime, they damn well better cough up a lawyer for me before asking their questions. You remember things like "probable cause" and "presumed innocent until proven guilty" and your Miranda rights?
(*And let's not forget that the airport security goonsquad aren't even real law enforcement officers. They're just glorified rent-a-cops wearing a fake uniform.)
Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (Score:4, Insightful)
The American public just bought into what the terrorists were selling, and the country will take many years to recover its senses.
Liberty is risky! Freedom is dangerous! Embrace the consequences, because the price is more than fair.
I really wish people would stop saying "America has succumbed to fear!" when in reality it's not the majority of Americans, it's just the elected and unelected officials in the Federal government that have succumbed to fear, the fear of responsibility. Airlines are afraid of being sued into the ground by families of airline-related terror attacks, and so the Government puts these security theatrics in place to allay those fears. Most Americans are now of a mindset to take out anyone who tries to take over a plane, even if it's only because they don't want to be held up from getting to their destination any more than they already are. We won't get any change in the security theatrics anytime soon, at least not until we start electing adults to the governments, Federal and state.
Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (Score:5, Insightful)
How will anything they're currently doing prevent somebody stuffing their rectum with C4 and boarding an aircraft?
Seems to me like they're really training the population to get used to government invasions of their intimacy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Only if they can figure out after the plane comes down, exactly how the explosives got on board.
We seem to be concentrating on the threats that failed.
Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Keeping what safe? A gaggle of meekly surrendering sheep, or a nation of free people?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think its the lack of a terrorist attack as much as the utter uselessness of this technology relative to the risk of attack. I think people are tired of being treated like criminals just because they want to take their family on vacation. I think people of tired of having their children treated like criminals and then having to explain to them why it's okay for the government to touch them inappropriately. Furthermore, if we were serious about security we wouldn't be so lax about it everywhere else. In October 2001 you couldn't cross a bridge or tunnel into NYC by truck without having the contents of the truck searched by police. I can't remember the last time I saw one truck stopped traversing a river crossing. I guess the threat of dirty bombs just magically went away, right? Terrorists only care about airplanes I suppose. I ride the commuter rail and subway every day. Do you know how many times I've seen even one cop on a rail platform in the 4 years I've been commuting? ZERO. There are times in Penn Station that the subway platform is lined with cops. Do you know what they do? They poke their head into the subway car, look both ways, and then back away and it proceeds to the next stop. That's security? This country is a fucking joke when it comes to security yet for some reason the airport is treated like the holy grail. If we don't give up our rights and dignity a great calamity will befall us. Give me a fucking break. I'll take my chances getting on a plane with just a metal detector. If it's my time to go, then it's my time to go.
Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Uselessness of the technology relative to the risk of attack ..." you got it. Well said, and someone mod this guy to +7.
One problem is that the government has to do something to appear proactive. The second problem, though, is that it's limited
1. By intelligence -- most government drones aren't the brightest lights, and politicians are even worse (background concept: imagine that we've placed the guy who thinks the Internet is "a series of tubes" in charge of security). (Or here's a better one, ideal for Slashdot readers: we've put the US Patent office, who can't even decide whether clicking a Web link is a "new and unique invention," in charge of it.)
2. By thousands of restrictions on what it CAN do -- for example, profiling is out, selecting "likely" passengers to be dangerous based on statistics, etc., etc.
My wife works for the government, and we don't know whether to laugh or cry. Every time there's an incident (shoe bomber, underwear bomber, or the most recent, the toner attempt), they go into Code Orange. They have a guy watch me as I wait for her out front at the end of each day (she's unable to drive due to her vision), even though they know me. Why? Because he was Told To Do So(sm). They are Taking Steps(r). They are proving that they are Serious About The Terrorist Threat(c).
(I've often said that, if the government bureau-crazy really had its way, they could stamp out terrorism overnight: they'd simply choke it with paperwork. "Before you may crash this plane into that stadium, you must fill out these forms assessing the environmental impact ...")
Better yet, whenever we go to Code Orange, security carefully checks credentials at the employee's entrance.
At the EMPLOYEE'S entrance. Even though they recognize each other. "Good morning, sweetie! How's your husband?" "Just fine" [hands over id card, puts purse on belt to go through the scanner] ...
Meanwhile, a milling mass of ordinary citizens wraps around the block, waiting in line at the public entrance, some wearing backpacks and carrying large suitcases .. . .. but no one dares do more than a cursory check of these folks, because they'll start screaming and next thing you know, you'll have An Incident(tm) that makes the news.
There you go. A Crisis occurs, government hurls paperwork, makework and completely (and inexplicably) ineffective procedures in place to give the APPEARANCE that they're doing something. They're the drunk who looks for his keys a block away from where he dropped them because "the light is better" -- writ large.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but checking an employee's ID even if you recognise him or her is good practice. When someone is laid off or quits they should have their ID taken and will be removed from the database of employees; checking ID therefore allows you to avoid letting people in who have been allowed in in the past but are no longer allowed, possibly for a reason that would make them a potential threat.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"checking an employee's ID ... is good practice."
Of course it is. I never said otherwise. What I was contrasting, though, was the treatment meted out to employees and their families vs. ordinary "folk" coming in through the public entrance. They pass through scanners, of course, and are told that certain items are prohibited, but that's about it. But the government can't do truly invasive searches on these people because it would cause an outcry.
That's why I used the example of the drunk looking for his key
Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (Score:4, Interesting)
people start getting indignant about security again
People aren't indigant over security - They're indignant over "security theatre," with billions spent for questionable returns.
For me, the big deal is not that some poor security guard has to look at my fat gut or grope my privates. For me, the issue is that this is a *tremendous* waste of money for little return - Money that desperately needs to be spent elsewhere. The days of terrorists smuggling explosives onto planes on their body is over. The recent "Yemen" incident points to this - The threat to airlines is the same issue that security experts have been telling us about for 20 years: Air freight. If you're on a plane, chances are you've been screened 100X more than what may be in the cargo hold under your feet. These nude-o-scopes do nothing to address that. However, addressing the issue of air freight is very complex and expensive and doesn't easily demonstrate to Ma and Pa Kettle that goshdarnit, the government's doing something - Whereas visibly putting a brown man in a turban into a scanning phonebooth thingamajiggy does.
Finally, if you *are* legitimately concerned about items being smuggled onto a plane on a passenger's person, you only need to talk to a prison guard or Israeli security expert to learn how useless these nude-o-scopes are, as they don't look *inside* the body, which is where most contraband is hidden these days anyway.
Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (Score:4, Interesting)
An Israeli security expert like Rafi Sela, who told the Canadian Parliament that the strip search machines are "useless".
"Sela, former chief security officer of the Israel Airport Authority and a 30-year veteran in airport security and defence technology, helped design the security at Ben Gurion." [vancouversun.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I wonder how well this would've gone over in October 2001. We haven't had a genuine terror attack in a long time, so people start getting indignant about security again. Do we really need to have another international calamity for us to start respecting laws that were put in place to keep us safe?
Do you know anything at all about 9/11? The hijackers did not carry their weapons (boxcutters) through airport security. Someone (whose identity has never been determined) smuggled the boxcutters onto the planes for them. So these scans and patdowns would not have helped AT ALL. Learn some history before you start taking my freedoms away from me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who is making money on not installing cameras everywhere ?
Who is making money on not waging wars ?
You are on a limb (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd just like to point out that the last post of yours that got down-moderated was a "The State knows best" - type post, which is probably more associated with the Far Left than the Right. My own feeling is that Slashdot moderators tend towards individual responsibility and freedom from excessive regulation, rather than any right/left dichotomy. And really, what do you expect of people most of whom have built their careers on the Internet? That's exactly the attitude you would expect.
Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (Score:4, Interesting)
"We haven't had a genuine terror attack in a long time".
A genuine terror attack is one that fills you with terror. It has very little to do with the convictions of the perpetrator.
There's no such thing as a "terrorist".
Not a single one on the planet.
Terrorism is a stratagem, not a political philosophy.
It's like calling the WW II Germans "Blitzkriegers", or the Americans "Amphibians".
"respecting laws that were put in place to keep us safe"?
But what if I think these laws address the wrong issue's, and only serve to create an illusion of safety against an ill-defined opponent?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
IMHO involved parties in a conflict should be named after their goals, not (one of) their of tactics.
Your definition applies to almost every participant in armed conflict in history, and
certainly to the armed forces of all the major powers. As a mental exercise, imagine asking everybody in the world (anonymously/confidentially) if they considered themselves to be "terrorists".
I don't think anybody would consider themselves so.
External labeling and over-simplification will lead us no nearer to real solutions
Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (Score:4, Interesting)
How about instead of restricting and violating our own citizens over this, we go out and find al Queda wherever they happen to be, and kill them all? I mean, supposedly the US is this horrible imperialistic country which thinks nothing of killing poor innocent foreign civilians... how about we start taking advantage of that? Quit tiptoeing around the Pakistani government and send the entire US army into the border area with an ROE of "shoot anything that moves that ain't ours". If there's caves, fill 'em with poison gas (remember supposedly the US violates the Geneva conventions all the time ANYWAY). If there's objections from the Pakistani government, nuke Karachi. Same for anywhere else terrorists might be hanging out, and that includes Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria.
No? There are some things that the US government shouldn't do, even for the laudable goal of stopping terrorist attacks? Well, then perhaps invasive airport security scans are one of them too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Security Theater Showdown (Score:5, Interesting)
Make it more uncomfortable for him than it is for me. Just some suggestions for those who have to go through this bullshit.
When you come back from your "pat-down" be sure to tell all the other passengers to ask for *that* particular screener, because he give excellent hand-jobs. See how red you can make him turn.
Re: (Score:3)
This is not about breaking the law. The law says you can "opt out" of going through the x-ray scanner and be hand searched. The hand search is very time and labor intensive so it might slow down the lines at the airport on the busiest flying day of the year.
It's called a protest.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually,THE law [wikipedia.org] says that they can't make a law like that at all. I really don't understand why everyone seems to think the constitution doesn't apply if you have a long way to go and a short time to get there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The best thing to do is to have two sets of flights. One set where no one gets body scans, and other flights where everyone get body scans. Let evolution solve this problem.
Re:Flying != basic human right. (Score:5, Interesting)
Flying isn't a right but being secure in our persons from unwarranted and intrusive searches is.
All of the people who have ever died on a plane, from mechanical problems and pilot error as well as terrorism, doesn't even add up to a single years worth of drunk driving fatalities. I would bet that you still willingly get in a private car so you're only fooling yourself. Airline security is already good enough that further encroachments to our actual, enumerated, rights are not necessary.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)