EPIC Files Motion About Ignored Body Scanner Ruling 183
OverTheGeicoE writes "The Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a motion in court yesterday regarding the court's ignored year-old ruling on EPIC vs. DHS. EPIC is asking the court to require DHS to start taking public comment within 60 days or, as an alternative, forbid DHS from using body scanners in primary airport screening altogether. If the court orders the latter, that would give EPIC what it originally sought in its lawsuit. Meanwhile, for what it's worth, the related petition on whitehouse.gov has a little more than half the signatures it needs to get an official 'response.' The signing period ends on August 9."
Fool (Score:5, Insightful)
You are a fool if you think the DHS will ever get smaller or less invasive.
Re:Fool (Score:5, Informative)
You are a fool if you think the DHS will ever get smaller or less invasive.
This may have been phrased abrasively. More informative would have been this little gem [whitehouse.gov], that should tell you all you need to know about petitions
The "Abolish TSA" petition had successfully gathered a needed number of signatures and, as a reward, the director of TSA had copy-pasted what looks like a brochure that could be entitled "Why TSA is awesome and what are our plans for next 10 years"
The most galling part (besides the fact that TSA director responded to the abolish-TSA request) is the fact that he didn't feel the need to fake it and say "We are working to address some of your complaints." I am not surprised TSA is ignoring courts, too.
So, yeah, good luck with that next petition.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You are a fool if you think that any government agency or program will get smaller or less invasive without an all out battle.
Re: (Score:2)
I worked at a public university. It damn well got smaller when there were budget cuts, and I don't recall there being much of a battle besides the Republican legislature saying "we don't want to pay for this anymore".
--Jeremy
Re: (Score:2)
Classes went away I am sure. As well as services.
I am also sure that due to the abomination that is tenure they had to keep some useless people.
Re: (Score:3)
We can at least help stop them from getting MORE invasive and let them stagnate for a while. Below is a link to another White House petition to stop TSA from fulfilling their oft-touted plan to expand into rail travel "screening." For many, many reasons, not least of which is the fact that attacks against trains can happen anywhere along the tens of thousands of miles of tracks in the US, TSA screening at train stations is a really, really fucking stupid idea.
"We The People" requires petitions to hit 150
Re: (Score:2)
True, but we don't have to make it easy for them. If we can't win, at least we can shame them at every opportunity.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? (Score:3)
So ask my not-so-smart alumni on facebook.
Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? (Score:5, Insightful)
Than molested every day for the rest of my working life? Yes.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
molested every day for the rest of my life? Yes.
I know some people who would pay for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you had an opt-out pat-down? If you can get off to that, I'd be impressed. They go out of their way to make it slow and embarrassing ("MALE OPT-OUT OVER HERE!") to hope you won't do it again, but even 1% of passengers doing it would probably overload the system.
Also, you *do* pay for it - there's a TSA fee in your airfare (it may be taked on or built-in)
Reagan vs National Airport (Score:2)
That's National Airport, I have no idea why people insist on calling it after some Alzheimer victim.
Perhaps because the airport's full, official name is "Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport" [metwashairports.com]? Has been since February 6, 1998 [metwashairports.com] when President Clinton signed a law changing its name?
So, what is it; are you just trolling, ignorant, or feeling betrayed that a Democrat President would honor a Republican?
Re: (Score:2)
Why aren't you demanding this change?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if there was no security whatsoever on planes beyond a cursory visual inspection of passengers to make sure there weren't any guns or knives on the plane, it would still be safer than travel by car in terms of risk of death per miles travelled. Very few planes fall out of the sky because of bad piloting. A great many cars are as I am typing this right now crashing into other cars, catching fire due to poor maintenance, etc. And let's not forget that all of them are driven by "above average" drivers. -_-
Death by terrorist ranks lower on my list of ways I could die than "slipping and falling in bathtub". Statistically... My odds of dying in a freak accident at home are far higher than death by terrorist. If only my rubber ducky got as much government funding for it's potential to kill me as counter-terrorism does...
Re: (Score:2)
Even if there was no security whatsoever on planes beyond a cursory visual inspection of passengers to make sure there weren't any guns or knives on the plane, it would still be safer than travel by car in terms of risk of death per miles travelled. Very few planes fall out of the sky because of bad piloting. A great many cars are as I am typing this right now crashing into other cars, catching fire due to poor maintenance, etc. And let's not forget that all of them are driven by "above average" drivers. -_-
Death by terrorist ranks lower on my list of ways I could die than "slipping and falling in bathtub". Statistically... My odds of dying in a freak accident at home are far higher than death by terrorist. If only my rubber ducky got as much government funding for it's potential to kill me as counter-terrorism does...
Scariness:
Sharks > Terrorism > Car Crash
Likelyhood:
Car Crash > Terrorism > Sharks
Re: (Score:3)
Editor's note: The above comment does not account for fatality statistics involving laser-equipped sharks, land sharks, genetically-engineered supergenius sharks, or robot sharks.
Re: (Score:2)
A car crash involving terrorist sharks gets classified which way?
Re: (Score:2)
If the crash occurred near a body of water, it's most likely due to laser-equipped sharks. If it happened a sufficient distance from such a geographical feature, it is categorically due to a land shark attack and will be filed as such. Land shark involvement does not rule out laser assistance in the incident. Also, either scenario has a nonzero probability of involving sharks of above-average intelligence or cybernetic bodily components. Due to administrative inefficiencies, classification has not yet d
Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? (Score:5, Insightful)
So not only are you correct, statistically speaking, but it is incredibly hard to justify the dollars spent by the TSA. As a nation we make safety versus convenience and cost tradeoffs every day. This is no different and there's no way a terrorist event on a plane could cost the nation even a fraction of what we spend annually to theoretically prevent them from occurring.
Re:Would you rather be blown-up by terrorists? (Score:4, Funny)
...and the passengers wary (and often pissed off) the only real chance a terrorist has...
Dang...I never thought of that. TSA *IS* effective counter-terrorism, just not in the way I ever thought. They get the passengers pissed off before boarding the airplane, the more pissed off the better. Then, if someone *does* try to hijack or blow up an airliner in flight, the rest of the passengers, eager to vent their frustration on someone, ANYONE, rip the terrorist to shreds. Voila! Terrorism problem solved!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is it has been proven that airline managed screening is defective - 9/11 happened on their watch. No airline is going to be insured without there being screening that has so far not been proven to be defective.
Sure, it is hard to justify in a vacuum. Problem is, without insurance the airlines don't fly. The government might be able to take over the liability protection completely, but so far the US government has never done anything like that. I don't think the flying public would be too hap
Re: (Score:3)
If I was a terrorist
oooh, if you'd used the phrase "if I were a terrorist" you would have been fine, but now all the alarms at Ft. Meade have gone off and the Slashdot IP logs will be subpoenaed.
Of course, that's just my subjunctive opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is obvious: We need TSA officials in every bathroom in America making sure you pass by a security checkpoint before getting into the bathtub. Sure, they'll be completely ineffective, but what other choice do we have if we want to win the War On Bathtubs?
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is we need a tinkle fairy [youtube.com] in every bathroom?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I recognize your nick; you and I have often argued the same points (from the same side, just to be clear), so I suspect you are trying to state the latter rat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I had one TSA agent inform me "the threat is real." What threat?
Keep up the pressure (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Keep up the pressure (Score:5, Insightful)
It says a lot about government when a court order isn't enough pressure! Why do we bother following the rule of law again?
(I know. It's because it's actually the rule of force. Look up rhetorical in the dictionary.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Did you miss the part where Congress has the Consitutional power to define the jurisdiction of the inferior courts of the federal judiciary and can limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court? When did you think they were ever beholden to court orders when it's the body given sole authority to create the courts and vest them with authority. The only thing Congress can't limit is anying that falls under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but that doesn't apply in this case.
Re:Keep up the pressure (Score:5, Insightful)
I see your court order and raise you one national security handwave...
democracy (Score:2, Insightful)
If everyone in one major airport on one day decided to refuse to submit to these scanners - a simple word-of-mouth campaign with leaflets handed out by people outside the airport would do the trick - a domino effect would mean they'd be eliminated nationwide by the end of the month.
But that would require people not to want them.
The problem ain't your reps - it's the people they rep.
Re: (Score:2)
They then claimed victory because on one complained.
Re:democracy (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singing a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an
organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in singing a bar of Alice's Restaurant an
Re: (Score:3)
"I don't want you to grope my pickle.
I just want to ride my motor-cickle.
I don't want to die.
I just want to ride my motor-ci,
cle.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I think it would be kind of awesome to have a chorus of people in line for airport security to break out into a rousing chorus of Alice's Restaurant on Thanksgiving Day. I mean, if you did that, the "WTF?" factor would be high enough that people would take notice.
I'd participate, but I haven't taken a plane anywhere for several years precisely because I oppose the security measures.
Re: (Score:2)
A typical case of American Blind Justice.
Re:democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
If everyone in one major airport on one day decided to refuse to submit to these scanners - a simple word-of-mouth campaign with leaflets handed out by people outside the airport would do the trick - a domino effect would mean they'd be eliminated nationwide by the end of the month
Everyone who wasn't near the beginning of the line would miss their flight. Do you think the TSA people doing the frisking care if you miss your flight? The airline would blame you for not showing up early enough to make it through security. About all that would be accomplished would be a lot of inconvenienced travellers. You have to vote for political candidate who promise to do something about TSA, not cute shennanigans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the suit would say, what exactly... "I participated in an exercise to make going through security abnormally long and therefore missed my flight. The airline is clearly responsible for my actions and should refund my money."
Re: (Score:2)
Petition is worthless (Score:5, Insightful)
The petitions on whitehouse.gov have absolutely no value. There's no law compelling the President to respond, although he's stated a response will be made. Several responses to petitions have been little more than filler material -- utterly worthless from a public policy standpoint.
Does anyone here really believe Obama's going to risk appearing 'soft' on terrorism in an election year? Nothing is going to happen on this issue this year, no matter how many judgements, rulings, petitions, etc., are made -- the status quo very rarely changes during an election year. Every effort will be made to delay this until after November...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Petition is worthless (Score:5, Informative)
he would get a LOT of support across party lines by signing an executive order banning the use of scanners
The problem is, that doesn't seem to be true. 4 out of 5 Americans support the use of full body scanners.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20022876-503544.html
There have been other polls about the same thing with slightly different results, but they all show a significant majority favor their use - such as this one with 2/3 in support: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/22/AR2010112205514.html
Americans value the illusion very highly, and will trade almost any amount of freedom for it.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually doubt the validity of those polls, and I think you should consider the source of mainstream media to be completely tainted at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
Those petitions are *worse* than worthless: they give people the illusion of participatory democracy when in reality nothing tangible will ever come from them, and in doing so distract people from other forms of participation (writing representatives, say) that actually have tangible effects, however marginal.
As for the scanners, it always amazes me how the political party that is supposed to be all about individual freedom and liberty, personal privacy, and limited government consistently spearheads the e
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone here really believe Obama's going to risk appearing 'soft' on terrorism in an election year? Nothing is going to happen on this issue this year, no matter how many judgements, rulings, petitions, etc., are made -- the status quo very rarely changes during an election year. Every effort will be made to delay this until after November...
Honestly, I figure it would be beneficial for him to come out fully against the TSA. He's a democrat. The people who think that's equal to appearing soft on terrorism are the republicans, who are not going to vote for him anyway. He takes a stand against the TSA and he has most of the liberals, some of the republicans who see through the security theater, and a bunch of the libertarians. It's a win all around.
Not that I think he's going to do it, but it's not the election stopping him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He takes a stand against the TSA and he has most of the liberals,
He has them already.
some of the republicans who see through the security theater
perhaps a few, for whom it's their top issue. All the rest - "Obamacare".
and a bunch of the libertarians.
The ones who aren't more upset about all the wars he's started. OK, perhaps there are a dozen, somewhere in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
The petitions on whitehouse.gov have absolutely no value
I disagree. They are excellent examples of just how impoverished our democracy is.
Re: (Score:2)
The petitions on whitehouse.gov have absolutely no value.
Also, getting people concerned with privacy to sign up to be in the Whitehouse database, to sign a worthless petition...
Even the Italians got rid of them ... (Score:2, Funny)
...the freakin' Italians ... bought them and ditched them, because they were found to be worthless (in terms of security value).
Cue circus sounds ...
Show "typical nuclear American" family participating in security theater...
Exit left with a loud sucking sound ... zoom out slightly to show two chins and a 48oz cola ... and a "man, I feel much better after getting my shoes back on after going through security."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen someone walk through security with a nearly full bottle of iced tea. He had forgotten he had it on him and the screeners never even caught it.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a friend who forgot she had a pair of large scissors in her art supplies box in her bag. The TSA missed them. As her bag went through the scanner, they even laughed at her expense when they saw her myriad of junk and huge wad of keys that was sitting on top of the box. Is that all it takes? A wad of keys?
I've signed Whitehouse petitions... (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't seen Obama or any of his administration comment on one of them. From the beginning they seemed to just be punting on most issues outside of health care. There was a huge swell of signers for the anti PIPA/SOPA petition, it easily hit the required number to get a response from Obama, but their reply was effectively a total dismissal of the issue.
Pure politics, the Democrats are just as afraid as the Republicans of standing up for a true human rights issue when they fear their big money supporters might be upset. Make no mistake, internet freedom is a human rights issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Send these terrorist supporters to Gitmo!!
-Typical conservative
So...
Did you hear the news today? The guy who blew up that bus full of Israeli's yesterday in Burgas, was apparently a former Gitmo [rt.com] resident, who was sent back to Sweden. He was originally picked up in Afghanistan. Oops. To be fair, the government officials related to the case have refused to comment on this. And as a note, there are several dozen stories on this as well besides the one on RT. I'm just too lazy to link to something else, or something non-english. The Bulgarian media were the ones to
Re: (Score:3)
And? Even if that's true, nothing about that changes any of the reasons that pre-crime is a horrible idea.
Re:LOL (Score:4, Insightful)
He was originally picked up in Afghanistan. Oops.
Oops indeed. There's nothing quite like a long detetention with torture to make someone lose it completely.
Re: (Score:2)
Oops indeed. There's nothing quite like a long detetention with torture to make someone lose it completely.
I guess you missed the point where he'd already been picked up previously before the fact with a suicide vest and $50k on him. Oh well, and that was well before hand. Just keep a spinning. I'm sure you can dig your way out of that one.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Informative)
> The guy who blew up that bus full of Israeli's yesterday in Burgas, was apparently a former Gitmo [rt.com] resident, who was sent back to Sweden.
No, [msn.com] he was not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:LOL (Score:5, Interesting)
A real conservative would insist that all would-be passengers get both, of course.
Of course a real conservative would tell the government to fuck off with scanning, spying, and any warrentless invasive nonsense. And ignore liberal disinformation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a conservative and I personally don't know any conservatives who like the TSA. We consider it another example of an overgrown government.
However, the conservatives I tend to be around are probably different than the type you are thinking of. Not all conservatives are rednecks living in trailers, just like not all liberals are actually hippies sitting around in drum circles.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
So, liberals don't like the TSA. Conservatives don't like the TSA. Why do we still have the TSA again?
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the powers that be who serve neither the conservative interests nor the liberal interests but rather their own political interests happen to like the TSA.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:LOL (Score:5, Funny)
Diebold.
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo!
I believe the governments of today cannot be easily pigeon-holed as liberal, conservative, left or right. They want power and money. However they market themselves is whatever serves their purpose at the time - that purpose often simply being to get voted back in.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they have managed to convinve you that those with opposing views and political ideologies are your enemy. Those in power fear unity and solidarity and are pleased as pie that the citizens are busy fighting with each other instead of actually paying attention. The best tool the government has in its arsenal is your partisanship and willingness to hate your fellow man. Yes, you. You personally.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Interesting)
Because both sides keep re-electing the same d&mn representatives to Congress?
If you want the TSA to go away, it's time to stop being afraid to vote for an unknown 3rd party or party-less candidate instead of an entrenched Republicrat/Democan incumbent.
Ask yourself a simple question before you vote, do you really think that an uneducated, toothless wife-beater-wearing hick from Virginia will do worse for our country in Congress than people who have worked their for 20 years and base every decision on trying to keep their job next cycle? My answer is always "no" to that question, and I live in California.
Political office was never intended to be a career. It was supposed to be more like the jury system.
Because (Score:2)
When something bad happens ...we all cower and agree to whatever the government does in the name of protecting the country...remember 2002/2003/2004....
no ?
.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As someone from Texas, I can tell you that the rednecks living in trailers hate the TSA as well.
Except they are the ones working for TSA.
Re: (Score:2)
So why do we have the TSA? Simple - airline insurance. 9/11 proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the airline security screening was worthless as far as keeping planes from crashing. Therefore the insurance confidence was shaken and what we would have seen as a followup was revocation of the policies for airlines.
Airlines don't fly without insurance. You can bank on that. So what would have happened if the TSA hadn't come along? Well, some type of far more invasive screening would have been required
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
Proven? How?
Boxcutters were not illegal to carry aboard commercial aircraft on 9/11/01. Mace and pepper spray were. However then, as now, a canister of pepper spray would be nearly invisible on Xray, and may or may not be seen on a person using AIT. 70% of simulated weapons and explosives still make it through the current screening regimen. I doubt that number is much different (either better or worse) than in the days of private security screening.
Two reasons that the 9/11 attacks were successful is because of the SOP which essentially said, "To reduce risk to passengers or flight crews, don't put up any resistance and comply with hijackers' demands." That thinking allowed three planes to be used as cruise missiles to disastrous effect. Which brings up the second major factor: Credible intelligence reports were mishandled. That student pilot(s) stated they wanted to know how to fly 747s, but were not interested in how to land them.
The first factor was corrected automatically the very same day with United 93's passengers upon learning what had happened earlier that morning took control of the situation and thwarted the attack.. Yes they all died, but they knew they would have anyway, but they prevented much more death and destruction. Reinforcing and locking cockpit doors was a very intelligent procedure change in the wake of that fateful day. That is something that I fully support, and I expect that the insurance companies do as well.
But what of all the other apparatus? Does anyone seriously believe that a bottle of water or a tube of toothpaste poses a credible security risk? Intelligence gathering has increased dramatically, but information sharing as a result has, if anything, only gotten worse.They've essentially created a much larger haystack from which to search for the same needles. Think of the "underwear bomber" attempted attack. It was reported that the terrorist's own father reported him to authorities. Yet he was still granted a visa into the U.S.? WTF? However tragedy was averted due to the important changes I cited earlier. Passengers (and an air marshal) recognized the threat that intelligence officials and security screeners missed and stopped the attack cold in its tracks! Even if he had managed to detonate his explosive, the worst case scenario would be that the plane crashed killing all aboard and possibly a few people on the ground as well. The odds that the plane would have crashed into a densely populated area, or a building of strategic and/or national significance would have been astronomically small.
But back to your insurance standpoint, do you believe any sane underwriter would think increasing the cost of the security apparatus 1000-fold or more to reduce the probability of a terrorist attack by a fraction of one-percent would be a wise choice? Considering that in the process, they've increased their liability to claims based on civil rights violations, delayed flights, stolen or damaged items in luggage, and health problems that may be (rightly or wrongly) attributed to backscatter radiation by passengers, screeners, flight crews, and airport staff?
No. If the companies who insured airports and airlines were the ones dictating security procedures, I would expect things to look a lot more like they did on September 10, 2001 than they do today.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Interesting)
In the US, self-described conservatives generally fall into at least 3 major groups:
1. Libertarians, who primarily believe that government should stay out of their business. Libertarian conservatives will oppose the TSA on the grounds that it infringes on personal liberty, and on the grounds that we have to pay for it. Other common libertarian-conservative positions include believing that taxes are too high and that people should be able to make any kind of contract that they want without government interference.
2. Authoritarians, who primarily believe that people who are in charge are in charge for good reason and should be followed. Major subgroups here would be the Religious Right, and military veterans who believe in the rightness of their cause. These folks generally support the TSA on the grounds that George W Bush was a good man and therefor must have been doing the right thing when he created it. Other common authoritarian-conservative positions include opposing abortion, and supporting the War on Drugs.
3. Group supremacists, who primarily believe that people who are like them are better than others and deserve to run things. These sometimes overlap with the authoritarians (e.g. Christian nationalists), but also include racists (which by most surveys comprise something like 10-15% of the US population). These folks vary: They like the fact that it's making life unpleasant for Arab Muslims, but dislike the fact that it's making life unpleasant for upstanding citizens like them. Other common group supremacist positions include support Christian prayers in public schools, English-only laws, and anti-Mexican immigration.
There are definitely overlaps between the groups, but you'll see arguments made from all 3 positions show up regularly in conservative circles.
And yes, liberals have similar divides. That's why boiling down all political positions to a 1-axis spectrum is stupid.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that both parties have abandoned anything close to even giving a shit about what the people think.
They put out their spin with the knowledge that shitty education and addicting TV keep a high enough percentage of the Moo Cows inattentive and stupid enough to vote via talking points.
We get the government we deserve.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We put up with it.
We have decided that it is not as of yet worth the personal cost to demand change.
When we do it will.
Till then it is only us who can make the change. Till we do we get what we deserve.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A real conservative would insist that all would-be passengers get both, of course.
Actually, a *real* conservative would see it for what it is: a colossal waste of money with a marginal, at best, success rate. They'd advocate something that has a proven track record and costs a fraction of what the body scanners do: dogs. Make everybody go through a metal detector, and get a once-over from a drug dog and a bomb dog before they're allowed on the plane... everybody's actually safer, everybody feels safer, and you don't have to let a high school dropout look at a naked picture of yourself.
A
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
Why a drug dog? Drug mules are the least likely people to make trouble on a flight, they don't want to call any attention to themselves at all. Because of that, there is no public safety interest to weigh against the 4th amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
She, and no it doesn't... I think drugs should be legal and regulated. If you're illegally importing the drugs, that takes the opportunity to tax them away from the government.
Re: (Score:2)
They exists. They are called air marshals.
Re: (Score:2)
Letting a police dog sniff me is (or should be) just as bad an invasion of my 4th amendment rights as the current TSA is.
And no, it won't make me or anyone else any safer than the current TSA. Well actually a little safer as their will no longer be large group of people standing by a garbage can full of suspected explosives waiting to go through a radiation machine.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh I signed it... Get my name on the "No-Fly" list? Heck with that, I put myself on it 5 years ago before the body scanners were put in place. I've only flown once since the implementation of the TSA, and that was only due to winning a free trip to DIsneyworld.. My husband was screened for explosives both ways for having the audacity to be confined to a wheelchair. They throw away the bottle of soda I forgot in my carry-on on our way home, which also had my husband screened for so long (even without the "S