Female Passengers Say They Were Targeted For TSA Body Scanners 572
wiedzmin writes "TSA agents in Dallas singled out female passengers to undergo screening in a body scanner, according to complaints filed by several women who said they felt the screeners intentionally targeted them to view their bodies. Allegedly, women with 'cute bodies' were directed through the body scanners up to three times over by female agents, who appeared to be acting on a request from male agents viewing the scans in a separate room. Apparently this was done because the scans were 'blurry,' possibly due to autofocus problems with agents' smartphone cameras."
After hearing the claims, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) announced plans to introduce legislation that would require the presence of "passenger advocates" at airports to deal with complaints like these.
Beyond popular belief... (Score:5, Funny)
it is humans who can be dishonest which hold positions in Politics, Military, Religion and of course the Tits Sex & Ass authority.
Re:Beyond popular belief... (Score:5, Funny)
Wait, I thought it was the FBI that were the Female Body Inspectors?
Re:Beyond popular belief... (Score:5, Funny)
What about their buddies the Clitoral Investigation Agency?
Re:Beyond popular belief... (Score:5, Funny)
What about their buddies the Clitoral Investigation Agency?
It's full of guys... so they still haven't found it...
Re:Beyond popular belief... (Score:5, Funny)
"A little man in a boat, you say...? I want the Navy's top men on this. Top. Men."
Re:Beyond popular belief... (Score:5, Funny)
And for the Spanish speakers, a friend in Miami tells me that down there people say that TSA stands for "Teatro de Seguridad en Aeropuertos" (Airport Security Theater).
Re:Beyond popular belief... (Score:5, Insightful)
Half of the moderators thought your comment was funny. It is both informative and interesting, but it truly is security theatre only, and it isn't funny that so many of our tax dollars are wasted on it. TSA is supposed to be Transportation Safety Authority, why not spend that momey on the highways and actually SAVE a few lives? Half a dozen people died locally in the last month who could have been saved by GUARD RAILS! 45,000 die on the highways EACH YEAR! The TSA should be disbanded.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And yet (Score:5, Interesting)
Next door some people was having fake sex. What to guess where the random people pointed the cam?
Re:And yet (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And yet (Score:5, Funny)
don't know; but suddenly, I'm hungry for some ice cream.
Duh...... (Score:5, Informative)
My thoughts on reading this were "Duh"!! I mean, who wants to look at a fat guy's junk, that is 98% hidden anyway by his beer guy...when you can look at some hot chick under her clothes?
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out....next obvious case study please!!
Re:Duh...... (Score:5, Insightful)
Still the images that come out aren't much to look at. I think even high school boys would be bored by nudie scanner output. If this is how TSA officers get off that's pretty sad.
Re:Duh...... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's almost pointless to argue against this kind of disinformation. The x-ray scans are about as good as a digital black-and-white photograph. I would definitely enjoy looking at those images of hot girls all day long and so would my right hand. The millimeter wave scans are not quite so good, but I'd still consider them in the titillating category. As far as the x-ray images the TSA themselves have finally admitted that they are pretty explicit, after having denied it for so long.
Think about it for a second. If the images were not explicit they could publicly release a whole bunch of them to prove it. Of course they haven't done that and the few images that have been released based on the original machine testing have been altered to reduce their resolution or even blur the genital area. The x-ray images are in fact really, really good. Good enough to detect small plastic blades or whatever underneath clothing. If the images were as low quality as some people claim the machines wouldn't be of much use.
Re:Duh...... (Score:5, Insightful)
What is also sad is Schumer's fix is to hire more people. How about call TSA's chief in and tell them it either stops or their funding stops. Schumer always was a tool.
Re:And yet (Score:5, Informative)
No, he mean't Ben and Teller. Ben filled in for Penn while he was away filming for The Celebrity Apprentice.
Re:And yet (Score:5, Funny)
> Ben and Teller
Penn and Teller maybe?
I've seen it many times. I like to sit down with a big bowl of Penn & Jerry's ice cream and watch their inciteful documentaries.
Re:And yet (Score:4, Informative)
No, you're thinking of Rodgers and Hammerstein.
Re:And yet (Score:5, Interesting)
Remove the people in the "back room", and have the back of the person doing the scanning visible to the people waiting in line to be scanned...AND have the display from the scan visible to those waiting. (We say the scan doesn't show anything indecent, so this will demonstrate that fact to the general public.) With this solution, the person won't get to see the person entering the scanner. And don't have the output display visible to anyone who is selecting who goes through the scanner. (although when I've flown, everyone was automatically directed to the scans, unless they opted out of the scan and for the full body feel up.)
I'd also recommend that all baggage handling/inspecting areas have windows that the general flying public can watch...that should eliminate theft by baggage scanners and handlers. And with minimal cost.
Re:And yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Remove the people in the "back room", and have the back of the person doing the scanning visible to the people waiting in line to be scanned...AND have the display from the scan visible to those waiting.
Remove the damn scanners instead! They are not solving any problems (has even one person been apprehended as a result of this?). Germany had concluded that the number of false negatives is too high for these machines to be of any use. The health studies are still lacking (probably safe, maybe not. some were _definitely_ unsafe and are currently being phased out). And the contractors already got their 250K/pop for most airports. So can we just scrap them now and go back to metal detectors??
I think everyone agrees that one type of the machines that are now being phased out was not safe. Why isn't that fact alone enough to end the program and jail everyone responsible for not doing extensive health studies before forcing hundred of thousands of people through unsafe machines? How is "replace it with new, certainly more safe, but still not evaluated machine" an appropriate response?
Absolutely (Score:5, Insightful)
Because what we need is not less invasive and less humiliating scanners, but additional people on the payroll so that all this useless technology can continue to have nearly zero impact on actual flight safety.
OPT OUT (Score:5, Interesting)
I've never trusted TSA to verify the safety of those machines. I'll take the grope rather than trust an unregulated scanner that bombards my body with who knows what power and type of radio or ionizing radiation.
Re:OPT OUT- If you're in a country that allows it (Score:5, Informative)
Nice try, unless you are flying out of Australia to the United States. More to follow, I'm sure.
Re:OPT OUT- If you're in a country that allows it (Score:4, Informative)
Or Great Britain. Which is why for my trip to Europe next year, I will not be flying through LHR.
Re:OPT OUT (Score:5, Insightful)
You realize the patdown (which is considered more invasive than a police pat-down) isn't really an acceptable answer for a lot of people either. You don't get to say a punch in the nose isn't an assault just because you offered to substitute a kick in the crotch.
Re:OPT OUT (Score:5, Interesting)
Ultimate opt-out: Learn to fly, buy a plane, and use airfields that don't have the TSA. There are at least 4000 airports in the US. Chances are, you'll find one closer to where you wanted to go. Added bonus - go where you want to whenever you feel like it. Day trip to the beach? Done!
If you say flying is too expensive, consider that you can get an airworthy 2-seater for about $15,000. Some airports even have free parking for both your car and the plane. Hangar space can be found for $200/mo similar to urban car garages.
Re:OPT OUT (Score:5, Funny)
My wife already thinks my motorcycle hobby is too expensive; if I want to get into private aviation I'd need to factor in the cost of a divorce lawyer.
Re:OPT OUT (Score:4, Interesting)
or just one skydiving trip...
(oblig: notsureifserious.jpg)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:OPT OUT (Score:5, Informative)
Who knows, maybe the paint used on the Hindenburg was cheap.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, usually commercial blimps and cruise liners don't crash head-first into similar-sized obstacles like icebergs. Being seaworthy or airworthy doesn't imply that it can ram mountains of rock or ice.
Re: (Score:3)
Why isn't it acceptable? I opted out on every recent flight I took and felt not the slightest bit ill of the experience compared to the scanner machines.
Re:OPT OUT (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not acceptable because my wife was directed to a scanner, and opted for the pat down. She said it ended up being horrible, and she felt quite violated. Like other posters said, this is a case where *neither* option actually increases security. I honestly believe that the pat down is designed to be so intrusive that the scanner ends up being no so bad in comparison.
Re: (Score:3)
As a guy, I've never had a problem with a pat down, but I've only had your garden variety. Apparently the pat down you get after refusing the scanner is much more intrusive, and if you're a woman involves lifting the breasts etc. So I can see that it would feel like much more of an intrusion. Add that to the fact that neither the scan nor the pat down are doing much for security and I think that rather than legislating for a "passenger advocate" we should be scaling back on the whole setup.
It's hardly a "pat down". (Score:5, Informative)
As a guy, I've never had a problem with a pat down, but I've only had your garden variety.
I've only taken one flight from the US since the TSA appeared on the scene.
I went through the metal detector (the body scanner had a sign: "out of order"), collected my stuff, and had almost left the security area when someone called me back. He said he was worried I was hiding things in my baggy trousers (they were essentially flares), so his colleague gave me a pat-down search as well.
I get a "pat down" search about once a month. They're a relatively common requirement for entry to some concerts and nightclubs in London. They're checking for weapons, so the bouncer typically pats my pockets, checks around my waist, then checks my boots. If I'm wearing flares they sometimes think to check the legs -- just brushing down with their hands. The impression I've always had is that they're checking my clothes rather than my body.
The TSA person's search was in no way a "pat down". It was a thorough body search -- I'd never had anything like it before. He rubbed his hands down my legs with significant pressure, kept me standing in an uncomfortable position (arms raised throughout -- even though it was supposedly only my baggy trousers that were a concern). He made a very thorough check around my groin, including sweeping his fingers in the spaces around (including underneath) my genitals. Every time anyone's touched my like that before, it was for sex. Does that make it sexual assault? It was awful.
If I was given a search like that in the EU I'd walk away and make a fuss -- but in the EU I'm confident of my rights, and my citizenship. But what could I have done on my way home after a business trip to the USA?
Something I can do is not return in a hurry.
Re:OPT OUT (Score:5, Interesting)
Either way, the scanners and groping do nothing to preserve or enhance the safety of the flying public. It all needs to be done away with immediately.
Re:OPT OUT (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably because you don't have a vagina for anyone to shove the side of their hand into. Our dicks aren't so sensitive (esp. when soft) and frankly we're not so picky about who touches them. I guess the best man-analogy would be if the TSA agent nearly touched your anal sphincter. Did it clamp shut just now? Good, then it worked.
Re:OPT OUT (Score:5, Informative)
I'm actually feeling uncomfortable thinking about what she said.
You can start here:
http://consumerist.com/2010/08/tsas-enhanced-pat-down-procedure-lets-their-fingers-do-the-searching.html [consumerist.com]
Then check this:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-first-time-the-tsa-meets-resistance/65390/ [theatlantic.com]
http://pncminnesota.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/rape-survivor-devasted-by-tsa-enhanced-pat-down/ [wordpress.com]
http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/tsa-admits-to-punishing-travelers/ [consumertraveler.com]
Re:OPT OUT (Score:4, Insightful)
Good for you. Some people are a bit more sensitive to that sort of thing. People who have been assaulted in the past can actually suffer a flashback.
Re:OPT OUT (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:OPT OUT (Score:5, Insightful)
Or you might not know what you are talking about.
Body scanners may provide a person with a skin direct concentrated dose of radiation that is 20 times greater than previously thought.
This is particularly dangerous to kids.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1290527/Airport-body-scanners-deliver-radiation-dose-20-times-higher-thought.html [dailymail.co.uk]
Re:OPT OUT (Score:5, Informative)
hahahahaha.
Linking to the Daily Mail is only not credible if what The Daily Mail is reporting is not credible.
I this case the report is credible and accurate. You can dispute what opinion of the Columbia professor cited in the article, but the Daily Mail is representing his stance accurately. Or did you think the article didn't accurately reflect his stance?
The Wiki has the same info:
"Opponents of backscatter x-ray scanners, including the head of the center for radiological research at Columbia University, say that the radiation emitted by some full-body scanners is as much as 20 times stronger than officially reported and is not safe to use on large numbers of persons because of an increased risk of cancer to children and at-risk populations.[67][68][69] Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, (UCSF) have argued that the amount of radiation is higher than claimed by the TSA and body scanner manufacturers because the doses were calculated as if distributed throughout the whole body, but the radiation from backscatter x-ray scanners is focused on just the skin and surrounding tissues:[70][71][72]
The majority of [the scanners'] energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying tissue. Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high. The X-ray dose from these devices has often been compared in the media to the cosmic ray exposure inherent to airplane travel or that of a chest X-ray. However, this comparison is very misleading: both the air travel cosmic ray exposure and chest X- rays have much higher X-ray energies and the health consequences are appropriately understood in terms of the whole body volume dose. In contrast, these new airport scanners are largely depositing their energy into the skin and immediately adjacent tissue, and since this is such a small fraction of body weight/vol, possibly by one to two orders of magnitude, the real dose to the skin is now high."...... etc.
Sorry don't have a facebook account.
I'm sure the list is long.
I think linking to facebook is perhaps fraught with its own credibility issues. Peoples personal laundry lists are often fraught with bias.
In the end, it would seem prudent to not voluntarily radiate oneself on a regular basis or semi-regular basis with additional radiation more than one would get in the course of ones daily activities. Radiation exposure from my understanding is a bit of a cumulative problem.
Re:OPT OUT (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you know what? Fuck them.
The government, politicians, and special interest groups love using faulty logic and bad science to justify their agendas. It might be dishonest and outright filthy to do the same, but I frankly have no problem leveling the playing field and using an argument that has clearly proven to be very effective on the American public.
So let's keep the "aircraft scanners send out harmful radiation" thing going. It'll definitely resonate with the over-50 crowd who lived during the Cold War. Let's get rid of these goddamned things in the fastest and most vicious method possible.
Re: (Score:3)
Addendum: I think the jury is still out on whether or not the scanners are harmful, but even if they're found not to be harmful I stick with my position nonetheless. Take a page from the creationists' playbook. Call the science "faulty" and "biased" and continually repeat the (illogical and incorrect) claim if that turns out to be the case. If you say something enough times, people will believe you - after all, look at all the people who believe cell phones emit cancer-causing radiation or that little brace
Re:OPT OUT (Score:5, Insightful)
You get more radiation from being in a high altitude, unshielded aircraft (a LOT more, IIRC).
I don't see radiation as being a point of controversy.
You're a moron, and the TSA and the government love you for being one.
The scanners are operated by untrained monkeys.
The scanners are not calibrated.
The scanners are not tested.
The scanners are not maintained.
And of course, the radiation you receive on the flight mostly passes through you. The radiation you receive from the scanner is all absorbed in a few milimeters of your skin. You get orders of magnitude more radiation expsure from a scanner than you do from a flight, even if you believe the scanners are outputting the "safe" amounts of radiation that they claim.
Re:OPT OUT (Score:5, Insightful)
You realize the patdown (which is considered more invasive than a police pat-down) isn't really an acceptable answer for a lot of people either.
This is a non-violence approach as best as Ghandi himself would have come up with. If the everyone opted for a pat down, then there would be massive queues as the TSA sods could not keep up with the folks in line, that gives them bad press - which is the last thing they want coming up to an election. Therefore, they put more and more and more staff on to keep up with the growing queues refusing the body scanner. Their budget blows out significantly and their methods are seen by the pollies as more and more asinine. Going into an election, the more noise and bad press that can be generated, the less politicians will want to touch it.
I live in outsde the US, but I can only implore you folks in the US to fight tooth and nail for all you can. Beat them at their own game - you have the numbers and you have the media there more than ready to take any hot load that will make the masses agitated. Use it to your (and by that defnition, everybody's) best advatage.
Take the invasive pat-down and blog about how violated you felt. If you are interviewed by someone else, be sure to portray the raw emotion, this will find a bond with all the voters out there who haven't personally experienced it. Contact your senator and write a lengthy letter outlining your outrage. Contact the airport directly and voice your objections - if they have enough complaints, they will (if they are not already) turn to be on the side of reason and common sense - make it bad business to support his TSA guideline and bring them to your side. Make yourself the martyr, and be proud, for you will be serving the betterment of your peers.
The only thing in a capitalist world that will serve your freedoms and personal liberty is bad business through bad press for those that seek to make money by taking it away from you.
Re:OPT OUT (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a non-violence approach as best as Ghandi himself would have come up with. If the everyone opted for a pat down, then there would be massive queues as the TSA sods could not keep up with the folks in line, that gives them bad press - which is the last thing they want coming up to an election.
A possibly more effective solution: Refuse to fly. Take a bus, take a train, drive, or forgo travel, but don't pay into the system by buying a plane ticket.
Re:OPT OUT (Score:5, Insightful)
A possibly more effective solution: Refuse to fly. Take a bus, take a train, drive, or forgo travel, but don't pay into the system by buying a plane ticket.
I totally agree, but this isn't always an option - and it doesn't send a direct message. Lower numbers of passengers can be spun as a downturn due to the economy, it can be spun as more people who are scared to fly due to the terrorist attacks. A long queue of people unwilling to accept an invasive body scanner is much harder to sell as a positive if you are trying to sell body scanners.
Re:OPT OUT (Score:5, Interesting)
A possibly more effective solution: Refuse to fly. Take a bus, take a train, drive, or forgo travel, but don't pay into the system by buying a plane ticket.
Or, don't fly to the US. They don't like us foreigners there anyway.
Re:OPT OUT (Score:4, Insightful)
Despite all the anti-immigrant rhetoric flying around right now, I think the US still is pretty open to foreigners. There are 40 million foreign-born residents in the US right now, and most are assimilating well. I say come on over, you might like it!
Re:OPT OUT (Score:4, Insightful)
Heh I'm not coming over, not because of the people, because most are just nice and friendly and quite interested when I tell them I am from the Netherlands, but I don't like being treated like a criminal when I enter a country. Having my pic taken, fingerprints etc, and that data being shared with multiple agencies, etc.
You're not being treated like a criminal. You're being treated like the rest of us citizens, comrade.
Re: (Score:3)
The downside of that, other than no other mode of transportation being able to compete with air travel in terms of speed, is that it could shut down the airlines altogether. I haven't been on a flight since the scanners were installed, but once you're past security, I found the entire experience fairly enjoyable, if a little dull. By shifting the hardship to just the TSA rather than the entire airline industry, we can hopefully force the TSA to back off without giving up the conveniences of air travel.
Re:OPT OUT (Score:5, Informative)
This is a non-violence approach as best as Ghandi himself would have come up with. If the everyone opted for a pat down, then there would be massive queues as the TSA sods could not keep up with the folks in line, that gives them bad press - which is the last thing they want coming up to an election.
A possibly more effective solution: Refuse to fly. Take a bus, take a train, drive, or forgo travel, but don't pay into the system by buying a plane ticket.
Good luck with that. https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=TSA+Vipr&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 [google.com] They're coming to your bus and train stations as well as check points on the road with the highway patrol.
Re:OPT OUT (Score:5, Insightful)
Within my lifetime, I anticipate that walking will become defined as "transport" and subject you to random security theater for the mere act of being on the sidewalk.
I hope I'm wrong.
Re:OPT OUT (Score:4, Insightful)
Their budget blows out significantly and their methods are seen by the pollies as more and more asinine. Going into an election, the more noise and bad press that can be generated, the less politicians will want to touch it.
A great idea but it won't work in the United States because all outlets of media are tightly controlled by a few enormous conglomerates.
What will happen in the US:
Re:OPT OUT (Score:5, Interesting)
I live in outsde the US, but I can only implore you folks in the US to fight tooth and nail for all you can. Beat them at their own game - you have the numbers and you have the media there more than ready to take any hot load that will make the masses agitated. Use it to your (and by that defnition, everybody's) best advatage.
If only I had a mod point. As someone who lives in the US but travels abroad, I understand where you're coming from. We in the states have a habit of exporting the worst of our bad practices (McDonalds, anyone?) and privacy intrusions to countries who are all too happy to adopt them minus the fleeting oversight and alternatives that we still get to enjoy here. For example, I've heard that more than a few countries (though I don't recall which) are in the process of implementing the scanners minus the option of a pat down - either you get scanned or you don't fly. I guarantee that TSA would strip away our options in a heartbeat if there weren't a significant percentage of people who would raise a fuss too loud to be ignored (I'm not talking about Joe Passenger, but people with more clout such as airline employees and a few politicians). Even now we have limited options - opt out, write to our representatives - but rest assured there are still those of us who are doing what we can to stand up for our privacy. Hopefully if enough stories like this one get publicized, public opinion will swing in the direction of respecting the privacy and dignity of those of us who just want to exercise our right to travel.
Re: (Score:3)
Some people have more trouble than others with the groping. Some people who were abused can actually have a flashback from a groping. For some, it offends against their religious beliefs to be touched that way.
Re:OPT OUT (Score:5, Informative)
If you try to opt out of both, the very best possible outcome is that you'll be turned away and lose the money you spent on the flight (non-refundable tickets are the norm).
In practice, people have been arrested and can be fined $10,000.
Re:OPT OUT (Score:5, Funny)
The situation is not actually winnable in any useful way; but if the rentacop goes home feeling as though their soul is soiled, you've done your part.
Re:OPT OUT (Score:5, Insightful)
I always ask the groper, "how do you feel about your mother being treated this way"
Re:OPT OUT (Score:5, Funny)
Always remember to give the officer doing the pat-down your best sex-offender-smirk and remark that you "always stand at attention for a man in uniform"... The situation is not actually winnable in any useful way; but if the rentacop goes home feeling as though their soul is soiled, you've done your part.
Anyone remember the Movie "When Harry Met Sally" ??? Specifically, the cafeteria scene where Meg Ryan fakes an orgasm ?? Several of us did that to the TSA Goons on our most recent flight. One guy even offered a tip for getting felt up "so well". . . . Needless to say, the TSA goons were more than a little discomfitted, and the people in line behind each of us were basically LMFAO. . . . Laughter IS the best weapon against officious busybodies. . .
Re:OPT OUT (Score:4, Informative)
Apparently, in the twisted logic of TSA-land, if the gate-rape extends to a full handjob, and you ejaculate on the TSA goon, you have apparently committed the sexual assault.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:OPT OUT (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it possible to request someone of the opposite gender? I'm a guy and I'm a lot more comfortable with the idea of a woman doing the pat down - even if she's old and/or ugly for the much the same reason I prefer female doctors.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, per the story you linked, the final call had already been given for the flight, and then the final call for anybody who wished to be screened to present themselves. She wasn't at the security checkpoint in time, and they sent the female worker home. That didn't seem unreasonable - if they didn't have any future flights to check security on, then there was no need to operate a checkpoint. The fact that somebody showed up after the final boarding call doesn't obligate security to let her through. Th
Re:OPT OUT (Score:5, Interesting)
I do this, and take the opportunity to tell the TSA guy that he really ought to do some Google searches for "terahertz radiation" if he's going to be exposed to it all day. So far all the guys I've said that too seemed interested, perhaps more so because I was actually friendly and not calling them sexual predators like most people seem to. If they won't stand next to those machines, those machines can't be there.
Re:Absolutely (Score:5, Interesting)
Is it too crazy to expect that sampling for security should match the actual observed distribution (with a uniform prior)?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Absolutely (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes it is. Here's why: If the defender is looking for a particular kind of person, the attacker will simply go with somebody who doesn't match the profile.
Consider, for instance, the most notorious hijacking in the US up until September 2001: A non-descript white man wearing a dark suit and identifying himself as Mr Dan Cooper boarded a flight from Portland, OR to Seattle, WA in 1971. He then hijacked the flight, extorted $200,000 worth of ransom for the passengers, jumped out of the plane, and was never se
This is what happens.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is what happens.. (Score:5, Insightful)
when you hire...pretty much anybody...and give them a badge.
"Passenger advocates" (Score:5, Insightful)
After hearing the claims, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) announced plans to introduce legislation that would require the presence of "passenger advocates" at airports to deal with complaints like these.
Passenger advocates, eh? How about plain removing the scanners. That'd be some Passenger advocacy right there.
Re:"Passenger advocates" (Score:5, Insightful)
The solution: Grow the government by forming a new department to look after the old one.
Somehow "Fire the bastards and shut down the TSA" doesn't seem to occur to people in congress. (D- or R- types)
Just fix the software. (Score:3, Insightful)
You can solve any problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who is going to keep an eye on the passenger advocates?
"So nat'ralists observe, a flea Hath smaller fleas that on him prey, And these have smaller fleas that bite 'em, And so proceed ad infinitum."
Not a surprise... (Score:5, Insightful)
There were reports in europe about airport screeners doing the same thing not only to women, but to religious minorities. In turn people are corrupt, and when you take people who get 4 hours of training(give or take a little bit), and give them any type of authority. Bad things happen, like abuse of power.
It does make sense to scan the hotties (Score:5, Funny)
Plus you have to figure it's more likely that a slim, hot chick is a drug mule than a fat chick, because if the fat chick was a cokehead she wouldn't be fat.
Damn, I have been underestimating the TSA guys all along, they got it all figured out!
Re:It does make sense to scan the hotties (Score:5, Funny)
Since you'd have a better chance of seeing some foreign object on a chick with a slim body...
We smuggled two wineskins into a concert once by taping them to a fat chicks legs. Everyone was losing their dope and booze to searches. We got in with two full wineskins! (Can't remember what they were full of)
Enough is enough (Score:5, Insightful)
After hearing the claims, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) announced plans to introduce legislation that would require the presence of "passenger advocates" at airports to deal with complaints like these.
No, no, no!
Just stop with the scans!
The correct solution to this problem isn't to add more and more layers of complexity on top. It's to simply accept that this whole thing was a bad idea and drop it.
It's like some bizarro world where the obvious answer is starting everybody in the face but nobody wants to reach for it, so they try to find ways around it.
What part can't the court's comprehend? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
How is the TSA screening [i]not[/i] in violation of this. Being forced to go through machines that essentially strip you naked is well outside the bounds of 'reasonable' by the definition of anyone but a politician it seems.
Re:What part can't the court's comprehend? (Score:4, Informative)
Here's what's going through their heads. [arstechnica.com]
It looks like a bunch of bureaucrats, their lawyers, and the judges were a big pedantic clusterfuck.
That's how freedom dies, it wimpers and dies under bureaucratic pedantry and government mendacity.
USA, the land I used to want to go on holiday to. (Score:5, Insightful)
I love going to the USA, but your government really isn't making this a pleasant experience.
Re:USA, the land I used to want to go on holiday t (Score:5, Insightful)
They've already done it, by locking the cabin door. The cheapest and most effective fix to the problem possible.
At my home city airport, we still have the normal meta detectors and non-mandatory pat-downs. Why? Couldn't a terrorist just drive to my city and fly from there? This whole premise makes the entire current system worthless.
Get a pat down. (Score:5, Insightful)
What we need is to make sure the pat down remains an option. I get that every time they want to send me through the scanner. I just go through the opt out line that lets me get patted down. A guy with blue gloves on lightly touches me to see if I have a suicide vest on or whatever and then lets me go through. I assure you he enjoys the process no more then me. Which is how it should be.
I'd rather not get bombarded by radiation in their scanner or have nude photos or whatever in their storage system.
What are the women afraid of here? They get patted down by a women. Think she's going to enjoy touching you any more then the guy that pats me down? Think again. The pat down is the solution to this...
And if enough people opt out of the stupid scanner then they'll stop doing it. And I don't think the pat downs are sustainable if everyone opts out which means they should start only doing it for some but not everyone. They can say they do it "randomly" if that makes the PC people happy but they're fools if they don't make a point of patting people down on watch lists.
We don't need advocates. We just need to make as annoying for the government to be annoying as it is for everyone else. If a TSA guy has to stand there and pat down every person that gets on the plane personally... then they'll be forced to adopt irritating practices.
In the meantime, it doesn't bother me. Any one man or women that has a problem with someone of the same sex doing a pat down has issues. And frankly, as a man, I really wouldn't care if a women did it. I grasp it's different for women and maybe they need someone special... I'm just over it. So long as it's isn't a chimp that rips my sack off I'll be fine.
Re: (Score:3)
I wish more people would do this. I agree, it would be completely untenable to maintain the machines' usage when most people opt out of it. I think this is the only way forward to ejecting these machines from our lives.
Re:Get a pat down. (Score:4, Informative)
What are the women afraid of here? They get patted down by a women. Think she's going to enjoy touching you any more then the guy that pats me down? Think again. The pat down is the solution to this...
Why do you think that the agent enjoying it is the problem? The problem is that the subject doesn't want to be touched. I don't care what the agent thinks, I'm not flying as long as that's a requirement.
Any one man or women that has a problem with someone of the same sex doing a pat down has issues
Anyone who thinks that giving up essential liberty for the illusion of temporary safety isn't a problem has issues. Your line of thinking is how ever greater breaches of our freedom become business as usual. This is creeping fascism happening on *your* watch, and you're going to let it happen.
Good job Schumer (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Speaking as a citizen of the Empire State, Schumer is a moron. Has always been a moron. The only thing that makes him look like less of a moron is having people like Clinton and Gillibrand as the other senator from NY. One more reason I think NYC should be politically separated from the rest of the state.
Re: (Score:3)
Speaking as a citizen of the Empire State, the voters are morons.
It's crude, but I'll say it (Score:5, Funny)
[ducks under table]
Which could be a more serious and useful statement than just a crude one-off remark. We are talking about TSA agents abusing their image-taking capabilities. I've been told that the machines have been modified to not store images, but is that verified? On the other hand, annecdotes and allegations are, well, just that, at least until more solid information is available.
Thank You George W. Bush (Score:5, Insightful)
A few Middle Eastern men show up at a Florida flight school with one blurting out that he didn't need to know how to land. All sorts of information about them makes it to the FBI, but the FBI does nothing. Later they fly a plane into a building.
Instead of removing the incompetent people and practices at the FBI you go against the goals of your party for small, cheap government by creating the white elephant of the Department Of Homeland security......and.....you screw over the freedoms of your fellow Americans by forcing them to be groped or nuked to get on a plan.
Sorry, but I have to call BS on the claims (Score:5, Interesting)
As a former screener, I have always been candid about what is wrong with the TSA, its policies, practices and personnel. I know the people at the TSA and most of them are pretty much exactly as most people assume/presume. However, there is one thing that female screeners don't do and that's "act at the request of male screeners." That pure paranoia here. There is simply NO WAY it is happening at the request of male screeners. That said, I also know there is a large portion of homosexuals (both male and female) working for the TSA. They are largely the same demographic that occupy the pedestrian ranks of other "security professional organizations." So if the rate of "targeting cute bodied females" is unusually higher than other groups, then it is likely done for their own reasons, not at the request of others.
Another brick in the wall (Score:5, Funny)
To the tune of Pink Floyd's "Another Brick In The Wall"
We don't need no radiation
We don't need no forced control
No blatant fascists in the airport
Agent leave those tits alone
Hey Agent! Leave those tits alone
All in all you're just another brick in the wall
All in all you're just another brick in the wall
If you don't show us your tits, you can't get on the airplane!
How can you get on the airplane if you don't show us your tits?!
Suggestions: (Score:3, Insightful)
For those who view low resolution body profile scanning as an invasion of personal space (I know I do and it's nothing to do with paranoia, it's just me wanting to maintain my personal space. If someone wants to take a blurry image of me home to masturbate over, that's their issue not mine): stop flying. There are other ways to get around.
For those who have a problem with staff members of the opposite gender viewing their scan images: demand that someone of the same gender processes you through (or simply refuse to be scanned, as is your right; however you may not be able to fly if nobody is available to pat you down because they're too busy drooling over the size 0 who just went through...)
Lastly, I would suggest that gate guards be prohibited from carrying their mobile phones on the floor. Period. There are company phone switchboards they can be reached through should the need arise; leave your mobiles at home and you'll find that you closed an avenue for getting sued, right there!
There's a conference in Atlanta this year (Score:4, Insightful)
...but I'll give it a pass, like I did since 2009, the last time I visited the USA. Please do not get me wrong: I enjoyed my time in Washington DC a lot! It was great, but getting there and getting back home involved truly unpleasant encounters with TSA officers. And I am not too easily frightened of security checks, because I had no issues with the security procedures at Ben Gurion Airport. But there I had the impression I was talking with (not just interrogated by) intelligent humans, and not morons with too much power.
BTW, the same conference was held in Seoul last year, and it was a blast.
Typical Chuck U. Response (Score:4, Insightful)
After hearing the claims, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) announced plans to introduce legislation that would require the presence of "passenger advocates" at airports to deal with complaints like these.
Typical Chuck U. response: the cure for problems in a power-drunk federal bureaucracy is... MORE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY!
Sometimes I'm really ashamed to be a New Yorker.
I totally don't get their criteria (Score:3)
If you were doing profiling, you'd never pick me. I'm a white guy who doesn't get enough sun, and I sound like I'm from central Ohio. Yet absolutely every time I depart through the Columbus airport, I'm asked to be scanned. I don't get it. No other airport has done this to me. Only Columbus. Also, my wife gets asked every time too. Same place. Do they have some kind of quota for locals so they can balance out the profiling?
Anyhow, I always politely ask to opt out, "I'm sorry; I would like to opt out, please," and when I'm being patted down, I chit-chat with the TSA agent. Since I'm not especially body-conscious, the pat-down doesn't bother me. I'm also pretty good at behaving in a compliant manner when I want to. There's a trick to acting slightly confused but quick to follow explicit orders that makes authority figures feel they have control, and that mollifies them. The pat-down always goes smoothly and efficiently. I suspect when they get belligerent patrons, they drag their feet.
Let the airlines be the advocates (Score:5, Interesting)
How about letting the airlines themselves be the passenger advocates? They're the ones with the financial incentive to get security under control, not some new federal agency, or worse yet, some new division of TSA with the same bosses. Plant some airline employees next to the radiation machines all day long for a while, and maybe some of them will talk to their superiors in the airlines and get the industry to start lobbying to end the TSA.
My security theater strategy is to just chat up the initial intake guy who looks at my ID. I'm friendly, polite, and they just wave me through with no extra security check needed. If they ever do pick me for the scanner, I plan to take the pat down, and talk about cancer clusters already detected, and radiation levels being higher than advertised from the scanners.
I think the pat down is just as atrocious as the scanner, and I fly a lot less now than I did before these new procedures got implemented, but the reality is you really can't drive everywhere. I'm not going to refuse both the scanner and the pat down, but I'm definitely not going to willingly take on more radiation exposure than I absolutely have to.
Re: (Score:3)
I, for one, am bursting with patriotic confidence! These 'passenger advocates'(likely toiling tirelessly out of a dank basement office hidden behind a filing cabinet and marked 'beware of the leopard') will almost certainly reform the TSA's abusive practices just as 'Internal affairs' units have revolutionized the professionalism of our police forces! Victory! Progress!