Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Government Privacy Transportation Your Rights Online

US Marshals Saved 35,000 Full Body Scans 712

PatPending writes "A Gizmodo investigation has revealed 100 of the photographs saved by the Gen 2 millimeter-wave scanner from Brijot Imaging Systems, Inc., obtained by a FOIA request after it was recently revealed that US Marshals operating the machine in the Orlando, Florida courthouse had improperly — perhaps illegally — saved [35,000] images [low resolution] of the scans of public servants and private citizens."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Marshals Saved 35,000 Full Body Scans

Comments Filter:
  • by BadAnalogyGuy ( 945258 ) <> on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:01PM (#34244776)

    The more these assholes abuse their power, the less willing the public will be to entrust power to them.

    Oh god, who am I kidding?..

  • by Monkeedude1212 ( 1560403 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:04PM (#34244814) Journal

    the less willing the public will be to entrust power to them.

    Problem is - you're trained from day 1 to entrust your power to them. Most everyone doesn't believe there is any other way.

  • uhuh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jav1231 ( 539129 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:05PM (#34244850)
    And they'll get about as much of a punishment as Charles Rangel.

    Like maybe: "The officers involved have received reprimands that will go in their permanent record."
  • by PhrostyMcByte ( 589271 ) <> on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:07PM (#34244876) Homepage

    If someone is going to invade my privacy for pointless security theater, I might as well make it as uncomfortable and inconvenient for them as possible. In airports, I always opt for frisking instead backscatter. No pictures to save then, either.

  • by causality ( 777677 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:08PM (#34244916)

    The more these assholes abuse their power, the less willing the public will be to entrust power to them.

    Oh god, who am I kidding?..

    Yeah, you mean they're doing that exact thing that we knew they were going to do and abusing their power? Nope, nobody saw that coming.

    Oh, and you're some kind of paranoid tin-foil hat wearing nutter if you ever read about a not-yet-implemented proposal and say "this is dangerous because it will be abused." We must ridicule and marginalize those who aren't in denial about basic reality ... err I mean those paranoid naysayers at once. Cue the "I got nothing to hide", "why don't you want to stop terrorists", and "this is all for your own good" posts.

  • by Stargoat ( 658863 ) * <> on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:09PM (#34244924) Journal

    In order to be a juror at a building, I was required to remove my belt and shoes.

    The Republic was somehow able to survive through 2 World Wars, a Civil War, and multiple British invasions (see what I did there?) without disrobing jurors. There is no greater threat now than has existed in the past. There is only a populace that is more cowed and less willing to challenge an ever increasing authority.

  • by Tebriel ( 192168 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:10PM (#34244930)

    No, it's the fact that the data isn't supposed to be stored. They're retaining the data illegally. That's what we're supposed to be even more worried about--the abuse of the system.

  • by TheCarp ( 96830 ) <> on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:11PM (#34244942) Homepage

    No, what you should be worried about is that other people are concerned, and the government that represents them doesn't give a shit.

    You should be concerned that the government that represents them lied to everyone and said that images could not be saved on the machines that the TSA was getting.

    You should be concerned that you are being asked to give up more and more privacy, now the privacy of what is under your clothes and in your pockets, for little more than the simple assertion that it is needed, with nothing of significance to show any real credible threat whatsoever.


  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:12PM (#34244974)

    I thought that for passengers' privacy, the nude-o-scope operator was in another room with no view of the real person, but these photographs match each person with their scan so there obviously is a simple way to view person both clothed and naked! ohhh, the opportunities...

  • Re:Sooner or later (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:14PM (#34245024) would be ideal!

  • by fotbr ( 855184 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:15PM (#34245034) Journal

    You mean the same machines that we're repeatedly told cannot save images? The ones people don't like because of the privacy invasion and the answer is always "the machines cannot save images"?

    Who is actually surprised by this?

  • by Speare ( 84249 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:15PM (#34245044) Homepage Journal

    I overheard it put this way: "If the government is going to keep groping our wives and daughters [], somebody's going to go Braveheart on them." Oppressive behavior just creates terrorists, it doesn't find or defeat them.

  • by paeanblack ( 191171 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:16PM (#34245064)

    President Merkin Muffley: General Turgidson, I find this very difficult to understand. I was under the impression that I was the only one in authority to order the use of nuclear weapons.

    General "Buck" Turgidson: That's right, sir, you are the only person authorized to do so. And although I, uh, hate to judge before all the facts are in, it's beginning to look like, uh, General Ripper exceeded his authority.

  • by thetoadwarrior ( 1268702 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:17PM (#34245072) Homepage
    Is anyone really surprised? Have you ever met a mall security guard, bouncer, airport monkey who wasn't a complete power abusing ass? Face it people do give them grief and it can be a shitty job so the only people that are going to take it are the type who are looking to bully the public.
  • by Shakrai ( 717556 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:17PM (#34245084) Journal

    I thought that too -- always knew that I would disagree with BHO on most domestic issues but I had anticipated that he would restore some respect for civil liberties into the Federal Government. Instead we've learned that the Democrats are just as happy as the GOP to embrace security theater.

  • by h00manist ( 800926 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:21PM (#34245130) Journal
    Socialist countries were just a bullshit power game, capitalist countries are just a bullshit power game. The difference is that in the capitalist countries there is good marketing.
  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:29PM (#34245262) Journal
    I agree with you in principle. But where were you when "if $something saves one child it is worth it" crowd is going nuts? Some deranged loon would do something really crazy. Some 200 policemen and FBI agents would chase every lead, winnow them down over a month. And finally when all the facts are available, this crowd would come in demanding action, demanding accountability, demanding action, demanding something to be done. "If only that police officer in that traffic light, clearly seen in the video had stopped the perp who was walking when the DontWalk sign was on, this whole tragedy would have been averted" They would chant demand somebody or the other to be fired. So they have perfected CYA strategies to fine arts level.

    None of the politicians would stand by any government servant. If there is one thing civil servants know, it is when the shit hits the fan, one of them will be scape goated. Media would be going fanning the flames. All those liberatarians and the small government conservatives and the "tax cuts will solve everything" crowd will be silent, very very silent. There will be no one to tell in the media frenzy, "It is sad it happened, but it can't prevented without serious invasion of privacy of millions of people and huge expansion of the government and law enforcement expenditure."

    Next time a terrorist blows up a plane, stand up and say, "yeah, it is sad and tragic. But we as a country have gone through far worse. We lost a million soldiers in WW II. 50K in Vietnam. Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo, London were all bombed mercilessly. We survived. Compared to that it losing two buildings and 3000 people is nothing. If we cower in our shoes and crap in pants, the terrorists have won. Just let us go back to normalcy." But no one will.

  • by mweather ( 1089505 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:29PM (#34245264)
    It's almost as if the President doesn't micromanage the TSA and leaves the job up to the person he appointed to do it.
  • by h00manist ( 800926 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:31PM (#34245292) Journal
    Trains don't fall from the sky. They run on electric power. Carry many more people than planes. Stops right in the middle of downtown, origin and destination, no trip to and from the airport needed. Sometimes you can just get on, no papers or checking at all, and buy the ticket later on board. Sometimes there is a restaurant car, or a bar car. You can see the scenery, it is less than a yard away from your window. You have long seats, tables, lots of space, walk around the cars. You can get off at the next town, walk around, and take the next train. There are almost never any accidents. Did I say it's electric?
  • by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:35PM (#34245358)
    Much of the recent Security Theatre, for example, the requirement to notify the government 72 hours in advance when you travel domestically [] in the USA now being phased in as a result of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which was, of course, passed by a Republican Congress. But I agree with you in spirit, that I expected more from him in this regard.
  • by Shakrai ( 717556 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:35PM (#34245364) Journal

    I love you lying Republic fucktards and how easily you conveniently forget the truth (AKA lie).

    The truth is that the security theater has been embraced by both parties. Obama's Homeland Security secretary is currently the biggest cheerleader for this technology. He is every bit as guilty as GWB of infringing on our civil liberties. The only question is what are you going to do about it?

  • so my choice is (Score:5, Insightful)

    by circletimessquare ( 444983 ) <> on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:36PM (#34245368) Homepage Journal

    1. radiation exposure and some mall cop staring at my dick. with pictures for permanent internet memories

    2. some mall cop groping my dick

    i choose 3: fuck flying. taking the airplane is a burdensome horrendous experience that just keeps getting worse and worse. it makes driving 20 hours seem more attractive than flying 4 hours

    "the terrorists have won" is a lame trite statement, but it's true. they've permanently altered our society to turn us into scared cattle and they've permanently made airplanes a hellish unattractive transportation method

  • by Microlith ( 54737 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:36PM (#34245388)

    Trains take multiple days to go from one side of this country to the other. Not flying is simply dodging the problem, and unchecked they'll push it on the trains too.

  • Thats Unpossible. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RichMan ( 8097 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:39PM (#34245414)

    So where are the political people who promised us it was "impossible" for the images from these scanners to be saved? It was clearly a manufacturing possibility that the images could be stored. And the rule of operation is that "if it can be done, it will be".

    Geeky systems observation:

    There needs to be a better political process where, when the political message is later proven to be a lie, we can shoot the original messenger. Because without negative feedback the system will continue to run amok. The current political process is not good enough and has a large enough time lag that corrective factors build up and sever oscillations occur.

  • by AjaxIII ( 1237230 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:39PM (#34245422)
    I agree there is a higher percentage of dicks in the security profession then there are in other ones, however that has more to do with minimum wage lackey given an illusion of power than the profession itself. As long as putting a warm body in a suit and calling it "Security" is the standard accepted practice, we are going to keep getting dicks in those jobs. Find a place where the qualifications for security are a little higher, and the pay is a bit better and you get completely different attitudes.
  • by Grave ( 8234 ) <> on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:39PM (#34245432)

    I disagree with your assessment that no greater threat exists now than in the past. The threat that presently exists is a public willingness to roll over and do nothing. How do you combat that threat? Education? Sounding the alarm doesn't really work, because the public has become jaded and is used to being told their children and/or themselves will be dead before the next morning if they don't tune in at 11/stay through the commercial break.

    The terrorists have been winning this war, hands down. The casualties? Freedom and real, meaningful security.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:40PM (#34245440)

    It has been pretty apparent that these things could save images from the very start.

    Have you ever seen a picture of these scans? Were you at the airport at the time, or was it on TV or the internet? How do you think it got there?

  • Re:uhuh (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Shakrai ( 717556 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:43PM (#34245474) Journal

    Its not like all these restrictions started under the GOP/Bush government, right?

    Actually some of them started under Clinton. Before Clinton came into office you could actually get on an airplane without ID. Imagine that. His administration imposed the ID requirement after TWA Flight 800, even though that air disaster had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism.

    Come off your high horse and admit that the Democrats suck as much as the GOP does with regards to this issue.

  • by timster ( 32400 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:43PM (#34245486)

    Who cares whether the machines can save images or not anyway? Any screener with a camera phone could just take a picture of the screen.

  • by frank_adrian314159 ( 469671 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:45PM (#34245522) Homepage that point a civil suit against the TSA for sexual molestation of a child would be appropriate.

    And would be dismissed due to "National Security" concerns.

  • by precariousgray ( 1663153 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:49PM (#34245580)

    They're retaining the data illegally.

    No one really seems to care if anything is illegal anymore, as long as it isn't a "classic" crime like assault, robbery, murder, drugs, or the like. The notion of illegality is as benign and dead as ever. Now it seems, laws are merely for retaining and furthering the authoritative reach of those in power, not as a code by which we determine what constitutes a crime.

    I've had money stolen by Fortune 500 companies and those employees laugh at me after I read the applicable laws aloud to them, even though they were clearly -- even personally -- in violation. It's all just a joke, a game. Of course, they win, because it wasn't enough dollars and cents to coerce me into jumping through all the necessary hoops and sending of all the paperwork to the various & mysterious government entities whom I would need to reach out to in order to even have "THE LAW" enforced.

    Nearly ten years ago, I was searched every single day before class my senior year. I dropped out because they wouldn't stop and I was sick of it. No due process. There were no charges, no arrest, no evidence -- nothing. Just some overzealous police officer saying I did something (I didn't), and that being enough. The police are the authorities on reality now, I suppose. Be searched, or be denied an education! No one cared at the school, the local school board, the state department of education, the ACLU, the attorney general's office -- whoever I reached out to. Couldn't even find any money-grubbing lawyers to take on the district. I was only seventeen, a definite no one. Why should they care? There are no consequences if they don't.

    There, in the corner of a locked bathroom, lay the United States Constitution trampled, battered, abused, and with a page upturned to the fourth amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons ... against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." Shall not be violated. Here I was, locked in a bathroom with two police officers, being searched, all because I didn't get lucky when somebody went searching for a promotion in a post-Columbine fear state.

    So, the law is dead. It's because nobody cares. No one is individually accountable. Nothing matters as long as you can have your TV dinner in front of a friendly glowing screen made just to keep your empty mind company; crawl under your made-in-China blanket at night; and sidle up to that wife of yours you met staring down the packets of pet niblets at the grocery store in the dog food aisle.

    Take away a person's false sense of security and all of the comforts of modernity, perhaps they'll have time or be more inclined to think about trivial, meaningless things such as "sense-makery" and "justice."

  • by Combatso ( 1793216 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:49PM (#34245592)
    just be sure.. you aren't blinde are you? That would explain why you haven't seen the machines atleast.. joking aside, if takin pictures of my junk through my pants is so important why are they not at every airport.. its ridiculous... get rid of the machines,...

    Or modify legislation that allows us to walk around naked, all the time... Should be our choice, if they want to invade our "privacy" anyways... I'm willing to bet if I try to clear security with my junk hanging out, I aint gonna make my flight... but what have I got to hide, nothing... im just 'indecent'... Go figure
  • by FrameRotBlues ( 1082971 ) <> on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:50PM (#34245596) Homepage Journal
    Disagree. Many of my friends (people younger than 30) don't realize there's a problem. They truly believe this is how it's supposed to work, and don't question authority.

    On second thought, I know people older than 30 who don't question authority, either.

    So it turns out you can be ignorant at any age. I'll add ignorant to the running list of stupid, complacent, apathetic, and weak.
  • by rwa2 ( 4391 ) * on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:53PM (#34245642) Homepage Journal

    Yeah, security theater, and heck, all government bureaucracy dealings make a lot more sense if you look at it as CYA (cover yer arse).

    If (when) the next terrorist action occurs, you have to be able to say you did all you could (no matter how ridiculous) to prevent it. But who could have foreseen the $(shoe | underwear | pregnant) bomber? Now that we know, we shall immediately take action to more rigorously screen $(shoes | underwear | fetuses).

    And anyone who backs off on one of those ridiculous reactionary measures will get hit will full responsibility for the next attack. And not our failures in $(foreign relations | winning hearts and minds | education | outreach) that perpetuate the inequalities that make people desperate enough to get indoctrinated for guerrilla suicide operations in the first place.

  • by stimpleton ( 732392 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:53PM (#34245646)
    "...what are you going to do about it"

    I will do nothing :(
  • by s4ltyd0g ( 452701 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:57PM (#34245706)

    You are not surprised I hope. The election didn't remove the asshats from their jobs in homeland security did it? Same asshats, same asshatholery.....

  • by gabrieltss ( 64078 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:59PM (#34245734)

    This isn't the ONLY thing either...

    Big Sis Caught Lying To American People []

    Video: Big Sis Caught Lying []

    'Naked' scanners at US airports may be dangerous: scientists []

    Shocker: TSA Has Been Molesting Children For Years []

    TSA Now Putting Hands Down Fliers’ Pants []

    TSA Gives Rapists And Illegals The Green Light While Groping Children []

  • by Shakrai ( 717556 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @03:00PM (#34245752) Journal

    Actually it just requires that the state have a BIGGER gun and that some portion of the population is willing to go along with the state.

    The 2nd amendment doesn't work when the individual stands up to the Government, even when the Government is completely in the wrong (see Ruby Ridge). It only works when the Government commits acts that are so far over the line that a sizable portion of the population is willing to take up arms.

  • Re:so my choice is (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kungfugleek ( 1314949 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @03:03PM (#34245796)

    they've permanently altered our society to turn us into scared cattle and they've permanently made airplanes a hellish unattractive transportation method

    No. That was us.

  • by blair1q ( 305137 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @03:04PM (#34245806) Journal

    That's going to make the Church's recruiting efforts grind to a halt...

  • by Aladrin ( 926209 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @03:08PM (#34245894)

    I took a train up the east coast and back recently. It is not an experience I wish to repeat. It was loud, cramped, bumpy, uncomfortable, and long.

    Why did I take that train? Because I refuse to take airplanes since the ridiculous things they had started doing at airports... Years ago.

    After taking that train, the airports didn't seem quite so bad any more. And now they've started with the cancer-inducing scanners and groping.

    Now, I just don't travel.

  • by Low Ranked Craig ( 1327799 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @03:10PM (#34245908)

    The only question is what are you going to do about it?

    Drive, and not fly international until this retarded behavior by the totalitarian fucktards in DC either fix the mess or get strung up.

    Neither of which will happen. If a 2 year investigation of Charlie Rangle can find him "guilty" on 13 of 14 charges, some of them quite illegal as well ad HE violations, and all he gets is a letter of reprimand, do you think any of these douche bags are going to clean up their act and risk their beuqacratic positions of power and prestige? (that's a rhetorical question) These fuckers need to be carried out naked* and stripped of their power.

    *(except Janet Napolitano, she needs to leave her clothes on as she's done enough damage already)

  • by rubycodez ( 864176 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @03:11PM (#34245924)

    In the early 40s, "half wits believing what they were doing was ok" were shoving slavs, jews, and homosexuals into railroad cars. You're wrong, we absolutely need to use the law to utterly destroy the life of at least one TSA half-wit and a not few of the degenerates at the top (Janet N.) who approved of our child-molesting and grandma-groping overloads..

  • by 19thNervousBreakdown ( 768619 ) <davec-slashdot.lepertheory@net> on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @03:12PM (#34245934) Homepage

    Since when are commuter jets nationally critical infrastructure? There's literally nothing else other than the terminals and jets (and passengers, of course) that are more vulnerable to someone past security than someone outside of the secured area.

  • Re:That's nothing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dcollins ( 135727 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @03:13PM (#34245948) Homepage

    I think that the $10K lawsuit and arrest was an empty threat, not actually happening. But that's still a pretty dirtbag Nazi kind of thing to threaten somebody with.

  • by 19thNervousBreakdown ( 768619 ) <davec-slashdot.lepertheory@net> on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @03:13PM (#34245954) Homepage

    Are you kidding? Easy access to a lake of fire? If that isn't cheap energy I don't know what is.

  • by BisexualPuppy ( 914772 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @03:14PM (#34245966)
    This is incorrect. There has been assassinations since politics exist. Don't "remember", 100 years ago, anarchists in France, Spain, Ireland, mafias in Italy, central europe etc. ? History is *made* of assassinations. That's how (most of the time) politic systems change. It's not harder than 100 or 200 years ago. There's not more willingness to die for a cause (remember, erm, religions ?). As long as religions, hierarchies, chiefs, etc. exist, there will be assassinations. That's not new. What's new is the power the government(s) have to spy its own citizens, with a very good excuse : "The ability to do great harm with easily-concealed weapons has grown.". That's just not true, read your History books.
  • Post-mortem (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jfengel ( 409917 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @03:25PM (#34246142) Homepage Journal

    Lying about this is unconscionable, but I can see a valid reason for them wanting to save such things: it lets you know how they were defeated last time.

    Suppose that somebody does manage to sneak something deadly on board. If this were a bug in a piece of software, you'd all want to leap to reconstructing the event, and you'd be irked if you knew you had deliberately thrown away a crucial piece of information. Especially since if it happened once, it could happen again. So you'd have to go on lockdown.

    I'm NOT trying to justify this. Lying bad, radiation bad, groping bad, virtual strip search bad, TSA bad, pictures always leak, terrorists winning, Orwell right, etc. I'm good with all that.

    But I'm a bit surprised that they didn't even try to make the case for saving the pictures, perhaps with an public key encryption and the private key kept only on a piece of paper locked in a safe somewhere. I guess they felt it was futile; people are uncomfortable enough about the pictures as it is.

  • Re:That's nothing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by clone53421 ( 1310749 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @03:29PM (#34246194) Journal

    In the US, once you enter in an agreement with any corporation you lose some rights. What the TSA is doing now is no worse than what many software companies do with their EULAs, it's just more obvious because it's physical.

    No. That’s bullshit.

    Certain rights can’t be contracted away. Period.

    That’s why almost any contract has a clause in it that says something to the effect that “you may have certain rights that are not listed, or we may not legally be able to indemnify ourselves from certain warranties or liabilities, in which case those claims are held void but the rest of our contract is still actionable”.

    Writing a clause into a contract that takes away my inalienable rights just makes the contract illegal.

  • by Shakrai ( 717556 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @03:29PM (#34246202) Journal

    The buck stops at BHO, he is ultimately responsible for whatever decisions the people he appoints make. He could end this policy tomorrow if he was inclined to do so. Do you think he'd be as willing to tolerate it if Michele and his daughters had to submit to being groped before boarding Air Force One?

  • by Jaysyn ( 203771 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @03:31PM (#34246254) Homepage Journal

    What I do every four years, vote for a non-Republicrat party. Hasn't seemed to help much however.

  • Two words.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sea4ever ( 1628181 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @03:35PM (#34246322)
    Child porn.
  • by crovira ( 10242 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @03:36PM (#34246346) Homepage

    Why should I care about the low-res crap copped from some security scanners?

    Seriously, as long as they don't give me cancer (which is iffy so I'm "opting out" until "the science is in") or cause growths (like a second head,) who gives a fuck?

    Hell, if they turn the heat up in winter, I'll walk naked through the airport. It won't be pretty but neither is comedy.

  • by tophermeyer ( 1573841 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @03:41PM (#34246414)

    By the Power of GODWINS LAW!!!

    Persecuting a TSA dumbass for following an illegal order is probably the worst way of effecting change. Do you understand that the problem is at the top of the pyramid? The problem is the people at the top and the policies they are crafting. Not the rank and file guys following these ridiculous policies.

    By no means am I condoning the activity, but stringing up the first TSA grunt that gropes the wrong person is ridiculous. That dudes life will be absolutely and utterly destroyed for following what he believe to be legal and lawful instructions. I'm saying we should prevent the groping from happening in the first place.

  • Re:That's nothing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hedwards ( 940851 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @04:05PM (#34246778)
    I won't be flying anymore. The fact that the TSA is now allowed to grope, fondle and molest people under threat of prosecution is beyond belief.

    Newsflash to the TSA, it's not an optional screening if there are serious consequences to saying no. I wouldn't consider something optional if the alternative is paying a $10,000 fine or being arrested. Sure technically there isn't a gun to the head, but no reasonable person is going to conclude that there isn't force being applied.

    This isn't any different than when a Priest, teacher or parent pressures a child to allow touching which wouldn't normally be tolerated. There is no informed consent when the party asking for it has the power to inflict such serious consequences.
  • Re:uhuh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Shakrai ( 717556 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @04:07PM (#34246832) Journal

    I see nothing wrong with requiring an ID to board a flight.

    That's because you are a sheep. The question is how does requiring ID prevent terrorism. The answer is that it doesn't. The 9/11 hijackers all had valid IDs. The ID check did nothing to deter or even slow them down.

    it is however useful in notifying next of kin that the person was on the plane rather than skipping town

    It's not the Government's job to worry about my next of kin. That's my job.

  • by Shakrai ( 717556 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @04:09PM (#34246850) Journal

    Our Founding Fathers put their lives on the line to secure our liberties and you aren't even willing to put your money on the line? Pathetic.

  • by Schadrach ( 1042952 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @04:17PM (#34246972)

    You make it sound like putting very good locks on the cockpit doors would have prevented the 9/11 attacks, but not funneled as much money to friends of politicians nor been as visible in a "see, we're making it better" sort of way. Maybe include an armed undercover LEO on every plane as an additional security measure -- undercover so that an attacker knows someone on the plane is armed, but has no way of knowing whom.

    Seriously, there are two things that allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur, and much like the "be handed the ball and stroll through the defensive line" football play (seriously, just search youtube for football play, it's probably still the first result) it will never work again. Those two things are:

    1. Access to the cockpit by the attackers. A securely locked cockpit resolves this issue entirely. Even better if it can only be locked or unlocked from the inside.

    2. Apathy by the passengers -- before this, being hijacked basically meant an unfortunate detour for you. Now that it's clear it can mean potential death, the passengers who wildly outnumber the terrorists can almost certainly stop him. Even if he's armed -- after all, resist and maybe die is a better bet than don't and certainly die.

  • Re:That's nothing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by clone53421 ( 1310749 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @04:36PM (#34247340) Journal

    Last EULA I read also had a clause that stated that if any of it would be illegal or unlawful, those parts were inapplicable to me. This is nothing like a EULA.

  • Re:That's nothing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @04:47PM (#34247508)

    The justification is that terrorists attempting to breach security could carry out their attempt up just before the point of detection, then say "you know what...never mind, I don't want to subject myself to this", then leave without detection and have a chance to try again until one of them makes it through successfully

    Ok, take a moment and think about this.

    How, exactly, would they know that they are going to be detected on one attempt, and know that they are not going to be detected on another attempt? What used to be "additional screening" a few years ago is now applied to all passengers - we're all getting a pat-down or backscatter scan now.

    The thing that may be moronic about it is assuming that someone who is about to sacrifice their life in an attack would actually care about being fined $10K

    The moronic thing is thinking that someone who is going to set off a bomb to kill hundreds in an airplane would not set off a bomb to kill hundreds in a crowded security area.

  • Re:That's nothing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @05:07PM (#34247804) Journal

    They are charging and fining anyone who submits to examination and then backs out. This is to keep terrorists from exploring the limits of the system by bringing contraband to the examination and then backing away at the last minute so they're not caught.

    Nah, this is pure spite.

    For years, they have allowed people to walk through metal detectors and, if it goes off, to walk back, remove some metal object and try again. Any terrorist with half a brain could have used this to accurately calibrate the metal detectors.

    Heathrow, on the other hand, once you set off the detector, you are going to be "wand-ed" and get a pat down. No second chances.

  • Re:That's nothing (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @05:16PM (#34247966)

    "They are charging and fining anyone who submits to examination and then backs out."
    He refused the examination and left. What did he submit to?

    "In the US, once you enter in an agreement with any corporation you lose some rights."
    TSA is not a corporation. When did he agree to this arrangement?

  • Re:That's nothing (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @05:30PM (#34248208)

    The difference being that if I enter into a contract with a corporation and they change the contract without my consent after I agreed to it, I can opt out of the changes and cancel my relationship. If I purchase a non-refundable airline ticket previous to TSA's new nude-o-scopes being put in place, I cannot get a refund on the grounds that I disagree with the new TSA policies.

  • by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @05:49PM (#34248518)

    There's one good reason to treat pilots the same as everyone else: Consistency - everybody on the plane goes through the scan, no special exceptions because special exceptions can be exploited. For example, someone could impersonate a pilot. The guys at the checkpoint are barely competent enough to run the checkpoint as is. Making them verify pilots' credentials, especially in the face of a determined attacker who can presumably afford good forging skills and can bribe the right people to tweak the databases (after all al qaeda aren't just terrorists they are super-terrorists) would be exceptional. Easier to just apply the exact same procedure that the TSA droids do all the time.

  • by Americano ( 920576 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @06:03PM (#34248692)

    The TSA claims it is "only" the equivalent of a chest x-ray.

    Point of fact - while I don't disagree with the general point of your comment, this statement is not true: they are arguing that it is a very small fraction of the radiation dose from a chest x-ray. Rough numbers, a chest x-ray will deliver ~100 microsieverts of ionizing radiation. The TSA specs say that a single scan delivers ~0.02 microsieverts. You would need to go through 5000 scans to reach the equivalent of one chest x-ray.

    There are, additionally, scientists who dispute the accuracy [] of the 0.02mSv rating, and claim it's far higher, though I haven't seen numbers indicating exactly how much higher. Assuming it's 10x higher than the TSA published, you'd still be looking at 500 scans to achieve the amount of radiation exposure as a chest x-ray. For pilots, and other frequent fliers, this could move it into the realm of being a significant individual health concern, above and beyond the aggregate public health issues.

    Even at the TSA-rated numbers, the x-ray scanners will pose an aggregate public health risk - even with a VERY low individual risk, you are multiplying this exposure across millions of passengers every year - you're going to see some non-zero number of cancer cases being triggered by the xray exposure from these devices. If the TSA-rated numbers are significantly lower than the actual radiation exposure (as some scientists are suggesting), you're looking at a ticking time-bomb, regardless of privacy issues.

    They could opt for the millimeter-wave scanning devices instead, which do pretty much the same thing, but don't include the fun feature of exposing you to ionizing radiation; however, even if they moved all their scanners to that technology, that still wouldn't address the numerous legitimate privacy concerns inherent to the use of the technology in the first place, and there are some potential concerns about genetic damage caused by exposure to waves of this frequency as well.

  • by Dthief ( 1700318 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @06:13PM (#34248804)
    Or get 100 people to buy tickets on one flight (at airport with body scanners for everyone) and have them all refuse, get refunded and watch the airlines make a fuss.

    Big corporations are the only ones these days with the muscle to push around big sis/bro

  • Re:That's nothing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chowderbags ( 847952 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @07:03PM (#34249392)
    I do not automatically consent to a search just because I buy an airline ticket. I don't consent to a search just because I get in line with that ticket. I don't consent to a search even when I get to the front of the line. I don't consent to a search when hearing what they want to do to me. I only consent to a search when I say "Yes, I consent to be searched". What kind of fucked up situation are we in where once you're past a certain point, you suddenly cannot back out of having a TSA agent rub you down? What happened to "The right of the people to be secure in their persons...against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."? I'm not talking about even to the level of probable cause, but just to the standard of reasonable suspicion. Refusing to be manhandled by TSA agents is not grounds for reasonable suspicion any more than refusing to speak to the police proves your guilt.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @07:15PM (#34249550)

    Yeah, that's what I though too. I mean, don't get me wrong, I wouldn't put it past them, I'm certainly not supporting the TSA wiping its ass on the Fourth Amendment, but PrisonPlanet/Infowars are tinfoil grade sites. That site also claims that the government is killing you with evil sciency things like vaccines, fluoridated water, and genetically modified crops, that there's all kind of secret death camps here and there that 'They' are going to throw you in for some vaguely defined goal, that 9/11 was an inside job, something about the Illuminati/Freemasons/Templar, blah, blah, ect...when they rant and rave about ignorant conspiracy theory laden half truths, it's hard to take anything they say seriously, which only hurts the cause of people fighting against genuine government abuses of power.

    I think the TSA is stupid and/or evil, not sure which all the time, but Alex Jones's sites are steaming cesspools of every flavor of nonsense imaginable, so no matter how much something on that site happens to align with how I think, I can't believe anything I see there without confirmation from someone more reputable.

  • by Altus ( 1034 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @07:43PM (#34249804) Homepage

    It is, by far, the busiest travel day of the year in the US, so that might be worth something, but I agree that an ongoing boycot is the only real way.

    Then again, the airlines would probably just blame the 20% on the economy and ask for a bailout.

  • by jammer170 ( 895458 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @08:36PM (#34250240)
    At this point, Obama is just as guilty as Bush, given the fact that he has the power to stop it and hasn't yet (nor even made mention of wanting to). The security theater is about the only truly bi-partisan thing done by our government.
  • Re:That's nothing (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @09:19PM (#34250546)

    What the TSA is doing now is no worse than what many software companies do with their EULAs, it's just more obvious because it's physical.

    Problem with that being that I don't recall signing anything of the sort. In fact, I doubt the fine print on the TICKET says anything of the sort. Also the important fact that the ticket came from a commercial entity and not the TSA. If you read the story of that guy, he is told that even walking into the airport obliges him to give up his rights. We're far beyond contract here into the realm of 'radioactive court cases' that no judge will rule against, no lawyer would touch. I feel stupider for you comparing the two.

    You know what makes the best terrorist target? Inefficiency. A big fat line of Christmas travelers who are only checked if they have a boarding pass halfway through the crowd of people lining up to get INTO the security screening. You will continue to be a target as long as efficiency is orthogonal to profit.

    Also, get over yourselves. Scary boogie-men from outside the Great Fatherland have NOTHING on terror compared to our own government and armed forces. When I'm driving to work in the morning, I'm not worried about Al-Qaida, I'm scared shittless about the bored cop on the corner who just might be looking for an excuse.

  • Re:That's nothing (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @07:14PM (#34262462)

    Yes... Because you know... A fine will keep them from remembering what they learned...
    Whatever fucktard.

    In the US No CONTRACT can waive your rights under law.
    The only recourse is the deny service.....

    The US sup court ruled years ago that the only reason these security searches at airports were legal was that people can decline at any time and choose not to fly... including after they were already in the terminal...

    The only way to FORCE a person to be searched is with probable cause.
    Otherwise.. Well...
    Terrorists are everywhere.. Mall, court house, airport, bus, concert, wal-mart....
    Lets just always search everyone all the time... It's not like we have the right to be secure in our person.

    Oh, wait.
    Fuck you

I'd rather just believe that it's done by little elves running around.