TSA, privacy, and the terrorists winning

[vaguestcargo]

I was having a good-ol' facebook discussion regarding that recent video of a child being strip searched "at random" by the TSA, and it comes out that a vast majority of the people I know, on BOTH sides of the political spectrum, think that the upped/recent/new security measures are completely valid and justified because they're "keeping us safe".

Then I started to wonder if I was delirious and completely wrong, and that I should enjoy the fear mongering, the radiation, "random" strip searches and xray nudie pictures of me floating around the interwebz, all in the name of "homeland security". What do you guys think?

[x togepi x]

it's security theater. completely unnecessary, just the government making it look like they're doing something.


if we really cared about security, we should look at how israel does their airports.

[vaguestcargo]

it's security theater. completely unnecessary, just the government making it look like they're doing something.


if we really cared about security, we should look at how israel does their airports.

Israelification is what the one sane person in my discussion brought up, and linked to a great article about it. But you're right, if the government actually DID do something, then we'd be safer, less likely to be living in fear, and they'd have *gasp* less control over us.

[zion the lion]

it's security theater. completely unnecessary, just the government making it look like they're doing something.


if we really cared about security, we should look at how israel does their airports.

When I was leaving Israel, I remember they didnt take my liter bottle of water, but they did take out my dirty underwear and searched my bag in front of a whole line of people, because I messed up on one of the dumb ass questions they were asking me at 3:30 in the fucking morning. Going through a machine that takes an x-ray of my "naked" body is a lot less embarrassing than having all of your underwear picked up and thrown to the side in front of a bunch of people.

[vaguestcargo]

When I was leaving Israel, I remember they didnt take my liter bottle of water, but they did take out my dirty underwear and searched my bag in front of a whole line of people, because I messed up on one of the dumb ass questions they were asking me at 3:30 in the fucking morning. Going through a machine that takes an x-ray of my "naked" body is a lot less embarrassing than having all of your underwear picked up and thrown to the side in front of a bunch of people.

People wear underwear. I don't see what's so embarrassing about that (but I'm not an 18 y/o girl, so that may be why). And I wonder if you'd say the same about your "naked" body if it were all over the internet, or saved to some scummy tsa agent's (as most of the ones i've interacted with are) flash drive.

[zion the lion]

People wear underwear. I don't see what's so embarrassing about that (but I'm not an 18 y/o girl, so that may be why). And I wonder if you'd say the same about your "naked" body if it were all over the internet, or saved to some scummy tsa agent's (as most of the ones i've interacted with are) flash drive.

I was 15. And have you seen those scans?

[Midget Pirates]

The Israelis know how it's done, but is that really possible in this country?

The sheer volume of number of travelers in our airports dwarfs theirs. I don't see how we could get enough people who were qualified to do the job that Israeli screeners do.

Do we feel that we're at the point that we need such security measures? Israel, for however you feel about them, has to live every day knowing the threat of terrorism is very real. We have to deal with the issue every now and then. In that part of the world, they live with it.

Their system requires more profiling. Would that fly in our politically correct culture? We have the luxury to worry about political correctness, they don't.

Again, I like how the Israelis do things in their security measures. I think it is far more effective, I just don't know if it's possible on a much larger scale here.

[Zeran]

it's security theater. completely unnecessary, just the government making it look like they're doing something.


if we really cared about security, we should look at how israel does their airports.
how does israel do their airports?

[Midget Pirates]

how does israel do their airports?

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2010/11/how-come-israels-airline-security.html

[vaguestcargo]

I was 15. And have you seen those scans?

Alright, let me rephrase: Pumping radiation into a 15 year old has less consequence then someone knowing you wear underwear?

btw, yes i've seen the scans, and you're probably talking about the full-body millimeter, which is pretty crappy, but the backscatter x-ray images are incredibly detailed, down to the face.

[zion the lion]

Alright, let me rephrase: Pumping radiation into a 15 year old has less consequence then someone knowing you wear underwear?

btw, yes i've seen the scans, and you're probably talking about the full-body millimeter, which is pretty crappy, but the backscatter x-ray images are incredibly detailed, down to the face.

That's not rephrasing, that's completely changing your argument, and televisions give off radiation. And yes, throwing my already worn underwear to the side in front of everyone for just answering a question "wrong", is a little bit more ridiculous than just going through a scanner.

And I've seen the backscatter x-ray, its not enough to make me feel like I'm participating in soft core porn.

[x togepi x]

The Israelis know how it's done, but is that really possible in this country?

The sheer volume of number of travelers in our airports dwarfs theirs. I don't see how we could get enough people who were qualified to do the job that Israeli screeners do.

Do we feel that we're at the point that we need such security measures? Israel, for however you feel about them, has to live every day knowing the threat of terrorism is very real. We have to deal with the issue every now and then. In that part of the world, they live with it.

Their system requires more profiling. Would that fly in our politically correct culture? We have the luxury to worry about political correctness, they don't.

Again, I like how the Israelis do things in their security measures. I think it is far more effective, I just don't know if it's possible on a much larger scale here.

Israel is a much bigger target than the US and no, I don't think we need more profiling because I'm not racist.

[vaguestcargo]

Israel is a much bigger target than the US and no, I don't think we need more profiling because I'm not racist.

Israel (apparently) uses behavioral profiling, not racial profiling (in principle, anyway... i dunno about practice), but is part of their questioning process. But the buzzword that "profiling" means "being racist" is why we'll continue to pump money into machines and invasive procedures as alternatives, because we're scared to make people angry (at being 'profiled', not 'groped').

Good link on Israeli airports (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-bother)

[apsterling]

Alright, let me rephrase: Pumping radiation into a 15 year old has less consequence then someone knowing you wear underwear?

btw, yes i've seen the scans, and you're probably talking about the full-body millimeter, which is pretty crappy, but the backscatter x-ray images are incredibly detailed, down to the face.

And by "pumping" radiation it's worth two minutes of flight time radiation. You take more in a dental x-ray.

[x togepi x]

Israel (apparently) uses behavioral profiling, not racial profiling (in principle, anyway... i dunno about practice), but is part of their questioning process. But the buzzword that "profiling" means "being racist" is why we'll continue to pump money into machines and invasive procedures as alternatives, because we're scared to make people angry (at being 'profiled', not 'groped').

Good link on Israeli airports (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-bother)

I don't understand why you think not treating brown people badly = groping white people.

I'm just unsure how effective profiling is at all. I mean, I would think a terrorist group is going to be intelligent enough to slip under that radar.

[vaguestcargo]

That's not rephrasing, that's completely changing your argument, and televisions give off radiation. And yes, throwing my already worn underwear to the side in front of everyone for just answering a question "wrong", is a little bit more ridiculous than just going through a scanner.

And I've seen the backscatter x-ray, its not enough to make me feel like I'm participating in soft core porn.


The UK disagrees. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws)

[apsterling]

I don't understand why you think not treating brown people badly = groping white people.

I'm just unsure how effective profiling is at all. I mean, I would think a terrorist group is going to be intelligent enough to slip under that radar.

Nothing will ever betray you more than the signs your body gives off. No matter how good you are, someone can still catch you on something that simple.

[vaguestcargo]

I don't understand why you think not treating brown people badly = groping white people.

I'm just unsure how effective profiling is at all. I mean, I would think a terrorist group is going to be intelligent enough to slip under that radar.

I never said anything about white or brown people. I said that we won't do anything within the vecinity of "profiling" because we're scared to offend ANYONE, at least when it comes to race. We are not, though, afraid to offend people by having them strip searched in public or touching their junk. I'd rather be singled out for my appearance then to have my balls grabbed by a random guy. Just my personal taste, though.

And I think that an 'intelligent' terrorist group could go through all the implementations we have set up in the airport right now. The scanners don't detect explosives or anything hidden under a flap of skin. I'm thinking getting a bomb onto a plane right now is about as easy as making one out of plastic and rolling the dice on being the "randomly selected" strip search, at this point. Not much intelligence needed there.

[Scrandon]

Yay for inflammatory rhetoric turning even the most mundane of issues into a shitstorm.

[Midget Pirates]

Nothing will ever betray you more than the signs your body gives off. No matter how good you are, someone can still catch you on something that simple.

this is why it is so effective.

"And Israeli officials profile. They don't profile racially, but they profile. Israeli Arabs breeze through rather quickly, but thanks to the dozens of dubious-looking stamps in my passport -- almost half are from Lebanon and Iraq -- I get pulled off to the side for more questioning every time. And I'm a white, nominally Christian American. If they pull you aside, you had better tell them the truth. They'll ask you so many wildly unpredictable questions so quickly, you couldn't possibly invent a fake story and keep it all straight. Don't even try. They're highly trained and experienced, and they catch everyone who tries to pull something over on them"



http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/forget_the_porn_machines_NQAJ5DOzf1 87gdRQnLURlO

[vaguestcargo]

Yay for inflammatory rhetoric turning even the most mundane of issues into a shitstorm.

The issue for me is that this doesn't make us any safer. Like togepi said, it's all for show (security theatre, i think it was). They're supposed to be coming off to the american public as "doing something" to ensure we're a more secure society when it comes to air travel, but with all the holes in even THIS system, we're really not.

Though the manufacturers of the devices sure are making a pretty penny. But I'm sure that doesn't have anything to do with it...

[x togepi x]

Nothing will ever betray you more than the signs your body gives off. No matter how good you are, someone can still catch you on something that simple.

That takes training that most TSA people aren't getting. Besides, considering how there are a lot of people nervous to fly period, I feel like that would cause a lot of false positives and even if you're right, that doesn't mean we have to do racial profiling you know?

I never said anything about white or brown people. I said that we won't do anything within the vecinity of "profiling" because we're scared to offend ANYONE, at least when it comes to race. We are not, though, afraid to offend people by having them strip searched in public or touching their junk. I'd rather be singled out for my appearance then to have my balls grabbed by a random guy. Just my personal taste, though.

And I think that an 'intelligent' terrorist group could go through all the implementations we have set up in the airport right now. The scanners don't detect explosives or anything hidden under a flap of skin. I'm thinking getting a bomb onto a plane right now is about as easy as making one out of plastic and rolling the dice on being the "randomly selected" strip search, at this point. Not much intelligence needed there.

We should be scared to offend people based on race. Just because someone "looks like a terrorist" to ignorant people clearly doesn't mean they are. Racism is wrong, even if there are supposedly beneficial implications of it.

[vaguestcargo]

That takes training that most TSA people aren't getting. Besides, considering how there are a lot of people nervous to fly period, I feel like that would cause a lot of false positives and even if you're right, that doesn't mean we have to do racial profiling you know?



We should be scared to offend people based on race. Just because someone "looks like a terrorist" to ignorant people clearly doesn't mean they are. Racism is wrong, even if there are supposedly beneficial implications of it.


I'm still not talking about racial profiling. Check out the articles about behavioral profiling the israelis do. It has more to do with passports and random questions and things like that... nothing to do with race (an above poster commented on experience). I'm just saying that we will never do anything like that because it may be PERCEIVED as profiling, and we're scared of that word... regardless of whether or not race has anything to do with it.

[Healthy Scratch]

did i miss something? you keep talking about your naked scans being posted on the internet or being saved on a flash drive. has this been happening? or are you just spouting bullshit?

[loveisdead]

did i miss something? you keep talking about your naked scans being posted on the internet or being saved on a flash drive. has this been happening? or are you just spouting bullshit?

100 or so pictures leaked.

[vaguestcargo]

did i miss something? you keep talking about your naked scans being posted on the internet or being saved on a flash drive. has this been happening? or are you just spouting bullshit?

Just spouting bullshit, obviously.

And since you haven't figured out google yet, let me help: 35,000 photos stored, 100 leaked, on machines that cannot "save, store, print or transmit the images".
(http://gizmodo.com/5690749/these-are-the-first-100-leaked-body-scans)

[candeo1919]

I am still upset about the story of the breast cancer survivor being forced to remove her prosthetic breast. Poor woman, it must have been so humiliating.

[zachff]

The "radiation" concerns are pretty much bullshit. The problem with all of this new TSA shit is that it isn't actually doing anything other than putting on a nice horse and pony show.

[<*)))><]

Those scans just look like blurs.

[EvilZeppelin]

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2010/11/land-of-the-free.jpg

[saysmydoctor]

Statue of Liberty has some large tatas.

[imfancyhuh]

I am still upset about the story of the breast cancer survivor being forced to remove her prosthetic breast. Poor woman, it must have been so humiliating.

wowwww i haven't heard of that. that's fucked up. i'm supposed to be flying out to boston in may. i hope they tone this search stuff down or i'm gonna be traumatized.

[Scrandon]

The "radiation" concerns are pretty much bullshit. The problem with all of this new TSA shit is that it isn't actually doing anything other than putting on a nice horse and pony show.

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/10/12/128998520989410639.jpg

[vaguestcargo]

They're at it again, those crazy TSAs (http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/tsa-airport-screeners-gone-wild-san-diego-again)

And the whole "not legally allowed to record/tape/video the patdowns or xray process is concerning.

[Healthy Scratch]

i would've imagined her a little saggier. (more saggy?)

[anamericangod]

An imperfect process for sure, but not worth the "controversy."

[spiffa0]

I travel a lot now for work and could care less about security scans.

[zion the lion]

The UK disagrees. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws)

I have the hugest problem with them even talking about child porn with this shit, you really dont see much of anything with that, and if an image of a child naked is such a big problem with people preventing child porn laws, then they might as well ban real pictures of naked kids that parents take. Its ridiculous to even go there.

[the seventeenth]

It's so much harder for me to bring bombs on board planes since stupid TSA and these dumb security scans recently.

[Posthardcore]

Why are muslims exempt?

[caveBEAR]

I travel a lot now for work and could care less about security scans.

So...you are concerned about it?

I have the hugest problem with them even talking about child porn with this shit, you really dont see much of anything with that, and if an image of a child naked is such a big problem with people preventing child porn laws, then they might as well ban real pictures of naked kids that parents take. Its ridiculous to even go there.

There's so much wrong in this post I don't even know where to begin.

[spiffa0]

So...you are concerned about it?

They don't bother me in the slightest

[caveBEAR]

They don't bother me in the slightest

Then you couldn't care less about them.

[spiffa0]

Then you couldn't care less about them.

Agreed.

[EasySkankin]

Pat-Down leaves traveler covered in urine (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/travel/news/airport-pat-down-leaves-traveller-covered-in-urine/story-e6frezi0-1225958372649)

[loveisdead]

Nobody wants to discuss that the case the TSA is referencing to do this shit doesn't really say they can do it.

[caveBEAR]

Nobody wants to discuss that the case the TSA is referencing to do this shit doesn't really say they can do it.

Wha?

[zion the lion]

So...you are concerned about it?



There's so much wrong in this post I don't even know where to begin.

Then dont quote me.

[caveBEAR]

Then dont quote me.

Don't post ridiculous shit and I won't quote you.

I have the hugest problem with them even talking about child porn with this shit, you really dont see much of anything with that, and if an image of a child naked is such a big problem with people preventing child porn laws, then they might as well ban real pictures of naked kids that parents take. Its ridiculous to even go there.

OK...let's see. Are you really comparing pictures of 3 year olds in the bathtub with silly soap hair to child pornography? Or is 'zion was photographed naked all her life' just another instance of you not matching up with reality? I assure you, the difference between the silly soap hair picture and a naked shot of a random child from the TSA landing in the hands of a stranger is vast. One is called a memory, the other is called child pornography. As well, it doesn't fucking matter if you 'dont see much of anything', if children can have pictures of them taken 'naked', and said pictures can leak to the general public...that's fucking child pornography.

[loveisdead]

Wha?

Sorry. I was talking specifically about the fines people have gotten. Google should show you what I'm talking about if you don't know.

[mena]

Anybody else find it a little ironic that the airport the Underwear Bomber boarded his flight at, Schiphol Airport, was the first airport to install the scanners back in 2007?

[thepianominstre]

It saddens me when people use fear-based arguments like "whatever's necessary to protect us from terrorists." So what if the next terrorist sticks something up his butt? Are we going to anal probe everyone?

There is always risk in life, and it's not the government's responsibility to eliminate all risk of injury or death. If it was, they would limit highway driving to 5 MPH and we would accept it. Or we would submit to strip searches every time we entered all buildings to make sure nobody brought in any weapons. But reasonably small risks of harm and death are the acceptable costs of living in a (generally) free society. So, hey, metal detectors are alright, but let's draw the line at an "enhanced patdown" that would be considered sexual assault if it came from anyone else. Oh, so you don't need the enhanced patdown if you just go through the scanner? Well, what if you don't trust the claims about radiation from these X-rays? (Besides, even the dentist basically covers you in lead to protect the rest of your body, right?) And even if radiation isn't an issue, what if you don't like the naked aspects of the scanners?

Besides, if these scanners are such a security necessity, why are only about 20% of passengers selected for them anyway? If it's truly necessary for safety, than there's about an 80% chance the next terrorist won't even go through them. Or maybe it's just a show conveniently designed to line the pockets of the scanner lobbyists who just happen to have their CEO as the former government security head Chertoff? Not that it matters, because the TSA hasn't stopped any terrorists since it was formed, anyway. The Christmas Day bomber they keep referring to was caught by the passengers, and at any rate didn't even board the plane in America. When Ralph Nader and Rand Paul or Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann are expressing the same outrage at this kind of stuff, you have to admit that something is terribly, terribly wrong.

The TSA has finally stepped over a line. Take off my shoes? OK, fine. Make me throw away my tiny bit of toothpaste? Whatever. Have my wife groped by a stranger who hates the procedure as much as she does? I DON'T THINK SO. Thousands of plane flights have been safe every day since before and after 9/11 without these scanners and enhanced patdowns, and that's a risk I and many other Americans are perfectly willing to take. I'm so glad that this tipping point has generated so much outrage at the continued encroachment of privacy in the name of security. The horror stories of cancer survivors showing their prosthetics or being covered in urine just serves to illustrate how ridiculous and useless these policies are. I just hope the TSA backs down before the net loss of flyers leads to a net increase of road congestion and traffic accidents.... If you're so afraid of terrorists that you're willing to let the TSA rob us of any and all imaginable rights, then how can you be brave enough to leave your house each day and spend time in all of the places that are so less guarded than any airport or airplane?

TSA, thanks for uniting the country. And don't touch my junk.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Back in 2003, many Americans were fine with the Patriot Act

[zion the lion]

Don't post ridiculous shit and I won't quote you.



OK...let's see. Are you really comparing pictures of 3 year olds in the bathtub with silly soap hair to child pornography? Or is 'zion was photographed naked all her life' just another instance of you not matching up with reality? I assure you, the difference between the silly soap hair picture and a naked shot of a random child from the TSA landing in the hands of a stranger is vast. One is called a memory, the other is called child pornography. As well, it doesn't fucking matter if you 'dont see much of anything', if children can have pictures of them taken 'naked', and said pictures can leak to the general public...that's fucking child pornography.

...That's not what I said, at all. I'm saying that a naked child isnt automatically porn, and it shouldnt be considered porn. When someone sends me a picture of their naked kid, it's not distribution of "fucking child pornography", not by a long shot. So gray x-ray image of a kid isnt child pornography. Nobody is sexualizing these pictures, you cant even really sexualize them. It's ridiculous.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

speaking of child porn...

http://www.pbfcomics.sciesnet.net/archive_b/PBF215-Kitty_Photographer.jpg

[JuneJuly]

Anyone read this?

http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter

[WTG]

My mother is TSA. I wonder how many of you know how this actually works, since I read the first post and was amazed at the wrongness of it.

1. There are no random strip searches. I have never heard in the 4 years of my mom working there of a single strip search (and the Phoenix airport would have one if anywhere would).
2. The new measures are about extra screening. There are some random screenings, which are put on the ticket and TSA must obey them, or TSA has a reason to search you for something they found in preliminary.
3. The machine results block out the face, are in a blocked room, and are unable to be saved. Also, they delete after 30 minutes.
4. The new pat down is only if you are chosen for the machine and willingly opt out. All they do is run their hands down your sides (meaning sides of breasts for females) and then up your inner legs, at worst brushing the area.

There is a good reason for these. It's called the Underwear Bomber, who, although he failed, got a bomb on a plane that would have taken it down, and it could be repeated by a more intelligent terrorist with success. Hence, the new screenings.

Knowledge is better than ignorance people.

[WTG]

Also, flying is not a right, it's a privileged. You don't have to fly at all. The stories going around of abuse are mostly exaggerative (some videos of the actual encounters disprove the people wanting their 15 minutes of fame) and there is no way around them if you are chosen. You have to do one or the other, or you will be told the third option is not flying.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

My mother is TSA. I wonder how many of you know how this actually works, since I read the first post and was amazed at the wrongness of it.

1. There are no random strip searches. I have never heard in the 4 years of my mom working there of a single strip search (and the Phoenix airport would have one if anywhere would).
2. The new measures are about extra screening. There are some random screenings, which are put on the ticket and TSA must obey them, or TSA has a reason to search you for something they found in preliminary.
3. The machine results block out the face, are in a blocked room, and are unable to be saved. Also, they delete after 30 minutes.
4. The new pat down is only if you are chosen for the machine and willingly opt out. All they do is run their hands down your sides (meaning sides of breasts for females) and then up your inner legs, at worst brushing the area.

There is a good reason for these. It's called the Underwear Bomber, who, although he failed, got a bomb on a plane that would have taken it down, and it could be repeated by a more intelligent terrorist with success. Hence, the new screenings.

Knowledge is better than ignorance people.

So your mom has touched peoples' "junk"??????????

[JuneJuly]

Sleep with the TSA. Probably that dude's mom.

[WTG]

So your mom has touched peoples' "junk"??????????

Well, I exist, so I would assume the answer to that is a yes, she has touched peoples' junk at some point in her life.


Also, my final point: men are only given the pat down by other men, women by other women (except for very severe circumstances like a small airport with no same sex member working).

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Well, I exist, so I would assume the answer to that is a yes, she has touched peoples' junk at some point in her life.


Also, my final point: men are only given the pat down by other men, women by other women (except for very severe circumstances like a small airport with no same sex member working).


AWESOME

[WTG]

People bitching about this violating civil liberties: don't fly. Flying is not a protected constitutional right.

[Healthy Scratch]

Just spouting bullshit, obviously.

And since you haven't figured out google yet, let me help: 35,000 photos stored, 100 leaked, on machines that cannot "save, store, print or transmit the images".
(http://gizmodo.com/5690749/these-are-the-first-100-leaked-body-scans)
umm... yeah. you were spouting bullshit after all.
i was talking about the backscatter scans. have any of them been saved, leaked, distributed? no.
we knew some MMw scans were saved. they're a far cry from the 'naked xray nudie pictures' you're so dreadfully afraid of.
if this kind of security picture bothers you...
http://cache-04.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2010/11/usmarshal_0005_layer_95_fixed_01.jp g

...then seriously you need to shut the fuck up. you're just bitching for the sake of bitching.

edit: i'm sorry. i probably should have put a 'NSFW' tag before posting that pornography

[mena]

My mother is TSA. I wonder how many of you know how this actually works, since I read the first post and was amazed at the wrongness of it.

1. There are no random strip searches. I have never heard in the 4 years of my mom working there of a single strip search (and the Phoenix airport would have one if anywhere would).
2. The new measures are about extra screening. There are some random screenings, which are put on the ticket and TSA must obey them, or TSA has a reason to search you for something they found in preliminary.
3. The machine results block out the face, are in a blocked room, and are unable to be saved. Also, they delete after 30 minutes.
4. The new pat down is only if you are chosen for the machine and willingly opt out. All they do is run their hands down your sides (meaning sides of breasts for females) and then up your inner legs, at worst brushing the area.

There is a good reason for these. It's called the Underwear Bomber, who, although he failed, got a bomb on a plane that would have taken it down, and it could be repeated by a more intelligent terrorist with success. Hence, the new screenings.

Knowledge is better than ignorance people.
So how do you explain this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skkCpnCm7iM)? I'm sure that child did something so suspicious they just had to search him. :rolleyes:

And you honestly expect me to believe that an image that gets sent to a computer is automatically deleted forever? C'mon. Anybody with any minimal knowledge of computers knows that's bullshit. Obviously the images need to be saved if they might one day be needed as evidence in court. Add that to that fact that there's been leaked images, and I find that impossible to believe.

Sure you might think these patdowns are "at worst brushing the area," but that's besides the point. If we allow this to happen, then how long before these so called "security" precautions expand to courts, schools, etc? You know, to fight terrorism.

[WTG]

So how do you explain this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skkCpnCm7iM)? I'm sure that child did something so suspicious they just had to search him. :rolleyes:

And you honestly expect me to believe that an image that gets sent to a computer is automatically deleted forever? C'mon. Anybody with any minimal knowledge of computers knows that's bullshit. Obviously the images need to be saved if they might one day be needed as evidence in court. Add that to that fact that there's been leaked images, and I find that impossible to believe.

Sure you might think these patdowns are "at worst brushing the area," but that's besides the point. If we allow this to happen, then how long before these so called "security" precautions expand to courts, schools, etc? You know, to fight terrorism.

That search has no context to it at all, we don't know how it came to be. I believe they started doing it against kids but changed it after that exact situation.

As for the leaked photos, many of those are bogus. I have not seen one that is legit yet, although I could ask my mother to look and see if they are even how they look for real. It's easy to make fakes, after all.

And the "if we do this here, then how long till we do it here!!!" is an argument fallacy. It does not prove your point, it proves you have no response to my point. Airports are not a necessity of life, and they are not a right. This measure is a direct response to an attempted bombing that, if it was not done by an amateur, would have taken down a plane.

[EasySkankin]

umm... yeah. you were spouting bullshit after all.
i was talking about the backscatter scans. have any of them been saved, leaked, distributed? no.
we knew some MMw scans were saved. they're a far cry from the 'naked xray nudie pictures' you're so dreadfully afraid of.
if this kind of security picture bothers you...
http://cache-04.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2010/11/usmarshal_0005_layer_95_fixed_01.jp g

...then seriously you need to shut the fuck up. you're just bitching for the sake of bitching.

edit: i'm sorry. i probably should have put a 'NSFW' tag before posting that pornography
NSFW
http://wtfentertainment.files.wordpress.co m/2010/01/airportscannernudes-1.jpg

[Healthy Scratch]

NSFW
http://wtfentertainment.files.wordpress.co m/2010/01/airportscannernudes-1.jpg
and how do you know she wasn't going to use that belt buckle as a weapon? i say thats a job well done.

but no seriously now, whats the backstory there? a picture with no source tells me nothing.

[WTG]

NSFW
http://wtfentertainment.files.wordpress.co m/2010/01/airportscannernudes-1.jpg

Fake. The faces are not visible.

[mena]

That search has no context to it at all, we don't know how it came to be. I believe they started doing it against kids but changed it after that exact situation.

As for the leaked photos, many of those are bogus. I have not seen one that is legit yet, although I could ask my mother to look and see if they are even how they look for real. It's easy to make fakes, after all.

And the "if we do this here, then how long till we do it here!!!" is an argument fallacy. It does not prove your point, it proves you have no response to my point. Airports are not a necessity of life, and they are not a right. This measure is a direct response to an attempted bombing that, if it was not done by an amateur, would have taken down a plane.
Somebody decides to blow up a mall. So by your logic, I should randomly have my body scanned or possibly patted down whenever I want to go buy shoes at Macy's? That's pretty much all it would take. It would be a direct response to an attempted bombing, wouldn't it?

Also, the Underwear Bomber did not even board the plane in the U.S, so even if we had this heightened security at the time, it wouldn't have made a difference. He boarded at Schiphol in Amsterdam, which coincidentally was the first airport in the world to install a full body scanner, 2 years prior to the attempted bombing. That sure as hell didn't stop him.

[WTG]

Once again, you are using a cheap fallacy to try to make your point. Obviously, after TSA has existed for about 8 years, it has not spread to malls. Use your head.

[EasySkankin]

and how do you know she wasn't going to use that belt buckle as a weapon? i say thats a job well done.

but no seriously now, whats the backstory there? a picture with no source tells me nothing.
Got it off a blog that didn't name a source, could be fake I suppose. Here's another one: http://depletedcranium.com/bodyxrayscan.jpg Just think it's strange people are denying that these pics are getting leaked.

I don't really have a problem with our current policy, but the potential for abuse is definitely there, and exceptions need to be made for certain circumstances IMO.

[mena]

Once again, you are using a cheap fallacy to try to make your point. Obviously, after TSA has existed for about 8 years, it has not spread to malls. Use your head.
And 1 year ago we didn't have full body scanners until the TSA found a reason to install them. Use your head.

[vaguestcargo]

TSA, thanks for uniting the country. And don't touch my junk.

Excellent post.

[WTG]

And 1 year ago we didn't have full body scanners until the TSA found a reason to install them. Use your head.

Yes, TSA did. They are constantly updating how they operate, in the same area. Hence how there have been many caught terrorist attempts by TSA and it's equivalent in other countries.

[vaguestcargo]

My mother is TSA. I wonder how many of you know how this actually works, since I read the first post and was amazed at the wrongness of it.

1. There are no random strip searches. I have never heard in the 4 years of my mom working there of a single strip search (and the Phoenix airport would have one if anywhere would).
2. The new measures are about extra screening. There are some random screenings, which are put on the ticket and TSA must obey them, or TSA has a reason to search you for something they found in preliminary.
3. The machine results block out the face, are in a blocked room, and are unable to be saved. Also, they delete after 30 minutes.
4. The new pat down is only if you are chosen for the machine and willingly opt out. All they do is run their hands down your sides (meaning sides of breasts for females) and then up your inner legs, at worst brushing the area.

There is a good reason for these. It's called the Underwear Bomber, who, although he failed, got a bomb on a plane that would have taken it down, and it could be repeated by a more intelligent terrorist with success. Hence, the new screenings.

Knowledge is better than ignorance people.

This is false, as a similar machine has recently been the culprit in the saving of over 35000 of these images.

Edit: Oh, and you realize that body scanner can't detect explosives, right? Not sure this scanner (or the 'patdown') would be stopping an underwear bomber, far as I can tell.

[Midget Pirates]

speaking of child porn...

http://www.pbfcomics.sciesnet.net/archive_b/PBF215-Kitty_Photographer.jpg

bonus points for bringing PBF to this thread. man i wish he still made new ones.

[zion the lion]

And 1 year ago we didn't have full body scanners until the TSA found a reason to install them. Use your head.

Yeah we've had them for a while.

[vaguestcargo]

umm... yeah. you were spouting bullshit after all.
i was talking about the backscatter scans. have any of them been saved, leaked, distributed? no.
we knew some MMw scans were saved. they're a far cry from the 'naked xray nudie pictures' you're so dreadfully afraid of.
if this kind of security picture bothers you...
http://cache-04.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2010/11/usmarshal_0005_layer_95_fixed_01.jp g

...then seriously you need to shut the fuck up. you're just bitching for the sake of bitching.

edit: i'm sorry. i probably should have put a 'NSFW' tag before posting that pornography

You're an idiot. The point is THAT MACHINE was not supposed to be able to save and send the images, just like the AIRPORT machines are "not supposed to be able to save and send the images".

The below images, reversed of the chick that is identifiable and very naked is not from a tsa scan, but from a backscatter xray that was set to highest settings to show what it was capable of. The point isn't that THAT picture is from the airport, but rather that it is what those scanners are capable of, especially considering the lack of policing of the tsa itself that is going on.

[mena]

Yes, TSA did. They are constantly updating how they operate, in the same area. Hence how there have been many caught terrorist attempts by TSA and it's equivalent in other countries.
Which terrorists attempts? And don't include the ones where it was the passengers who actually foiled whatever attempt there was.

And the fact that you're willing to give up your civil rights because you have such a fear of "terrorism" is a little chilling. Yeah yeah, I know. Flying is not a right, it's a privilege.

[Healthy Scratch]

Got it off a blog that didn't name a source, could be fake I suppose. Here's another one: http://depletedcranium.com/bodyxrayscan.jpg Just think it's strange people are denying that these pics are getting leaked.

I don't really have a problem with our current policy, but the potential for abuse is definitely there, and exceptions need to be made for certain circumstances IMO.
the pictures may or may not be fake, it doesn't mean a whole lot either way. these scanners aren't used exclusively by the TSA. just because a picture exists, it doesn't mean it was leaked from an airport security scan.

[mena]

Yeah we've had them for a while.
I believe there are currently 400 body scanners. This will go up to 1,000 by 2011. Sure they might have been installed in some places, but they were not at all major airports in the U.S.

[apoemtothedead]

When was the last time there was a legitimate threat on a flight originating in the US?

[Healthy Scratch]

You're an idiot. The point is THAT MACHINE was not supposed to be able to save and send the images, just like the AIRPORT machines are "not supposed to be able to save and send the images".

The below images, reversed of the chick that is identifiable and very naked is not from a tsa scan, but from a backscatter xray that was set to highest settings to show what it was capable of. The point isn't that THAT picture is from the airport, but rather that it is what those scanners are capable of, especially considering the lack of policing of the tsa itself that is going on.
so let me get this straight then.
these uber-explicit, 'naked nudie porn' shots you're preaching about haven't actually been saved, stored, or leaked.
is that right?

you're just afraid that IF someone were to crank the dial to 11, and IF the machine can store images, and IF an evil pervert were to gain access to the machine, and IF he were stupid enough to try and remove them and distribute them without getting caught, then MAYBE we'd have something to be nervous about?

yeah, this is stupid. i'm done with this. if you're that afraid someone might see your dick then i'm sorry.

[apsterling]

That takes training that most TSA people aren't getting. Besides, considering how there are a lot of people nervous to fly period, I feel like that would cause a lot of false positives and even if you're right, that doesn't mean we have to do racial profiling you know?

Okay, and so every test we do with the body scans that doesn't find anything is a false positive on the merits of the test. I fail to see the benefit of sparing the majority the wait and stress.

[DeviateRogue]

The issue for me is that this doesn't make us any safer. Like togepi said, it's all for show (security theatre, i think it was). They're supposed to be coming off to the american public as "doing something" to ensure we're a more secure society when it comes to air travel, but with all the holes in even THIS system, we're really not.

Though the manufacturers of the devices sure are making a pretty penny. But I'm sure that doesn't have anything to do with it...


Quick question, are you a Becker?

[eatbabiesyum]

personally what the government does for "security" terrifies me.

the other day my mom was telling me how she thought it was a good idea for parents to put chips in their children for tracking and protection.

fuck that. it's digusting

[DeviateRogue]

Why are muslims exempt?

They aren't the TSA will search/scan everybody regardless of religious belief.

As for the basic "issue" I believe the security measures are pointless, but I feel the controversy isn't necessary. You aren't subjected to flying, if you don't like the system fucking drive.

(If you are forced to travel by plane for business however you have my apologies)

[caveBEAR]

Why don't we make Breathalyzers to start car engines a requirement for all automobiles? After all, more people are killed in the U.S. each year by drunk drivers than terrorists, and we never know who the drunk driver could be...and it could be anyone! Don't like that it's infringing on your rights? Fuck you, you can walk. Driving's not a right.

[DeviateRogue]

Why don't we make Breathalyzers to start car engines a requirement for all automobiles? After all, more people are killed in the U.S. each year by drunk drivers than terrorists, and we never know who the drunk driver could be...and it could be anyone! Don't like that it's infringing on your rights? Fuck you, you can walk. Driving's not a right.
Having a breathalyzer to start your car engine wouldn't be such a bad idea, besides becoming monotonous. I can't stand a drunk who risks others lives to drive on the road.

I get your point however, I guess I'm not in the concerned demographic since I haven't flown in 14 years. I get why people are crying foul, it's just most of there deductions are wrong. For me, the system fails in that, if you do find a terrorist, what's stopping him from detonating a bomb at the gate.

[thepianominstre]

What about, just, you know, spreading germs?

Or what if the radiation dose is really 20 times higher (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1290527/Airport-body-scanners-deliver-radiation-dose-20-times-higher-thought.html) than we think? (Old link for the UK, I know, but does the extreme underexaggerating of government statistics (http://www.countercurrents.org/eley150510.htm) sound familiar to anyone else (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/06/scientists-again-raise-government-estimate-of-oil-leak-rate.html)?

[Healthy Scratch]

What about, just, you know, spreading germs?

Or what if the radiation dose is really 20 times higher (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1290527/Airport-body-scanners-deliver-radiation-dose-20-times-higher-thought.html) than we think? (Old link for the UK, I know, but does the extreme underexaggerating of government statistics (http://www.countercurrents.org/eley150510.htm) sound familiar to anyone else (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/06/scientists-again-raise-government-estimate-of-oil-leak-rate.html)?
well, your logic is sound. since the oil spill reports were unreliable, we shouldn't believe a word anyone says about these x-ray machines. you've really cleared that up for me.

[raychull]

I read an article that basically talked about how the TSA couldn't prove that they had actually stopped a single terrorist.

[x togepi x]

Okay, and so every test we do with the body scans that doesn't find anything is a false positive on the merits of the test. I fail to see the benefit of sparing the majority the wait and stress.

look, i'm just telling you the arguments against behavioral profiling. what you don't understand is Chertoff, the dude at homeland security who advocated these scans in his tenure as director, is on the payroll of a company that makes those scanning machines. i'm not saying there's a benefit to scanning because i think it's theater (something we do to create the illusion of safety) but there's a lot less money to be made by that type of profiling.

my main problem with profiling is the relatively untrained nature of a lot of TSA workers.

[candeo1919]

It saddens me when people use fear-based arguments like "whatever's necessary to protect us from terrorists." So what if the next terrorist sticks something up his butt? Are we going to anal probe everyone?

There is always risk in life, and it's not the government's responsibility to eliminate all risk of injury or death. If it was, they would limit highway driving to 5 MPH and we would accept it. Or we would submit to strip searches every time we entered all buildings to make sure nobody brought in any weapons. But reasonably small risks of harm and death are the acceptable costs of living in a (generally) free society. So, hey, metal detectors are alright, but let's draw the line at an "enhanced patdown" that would be considered sexual assault if it came from anyone else. Oh, so you don't need the enhanced patdown if you just go through the scanner? Well, what if you don't trust the claims about radiation from these X-rays? (Besides, even the dentist basically covers you in lead to protect the rest of your body, right?) And even if radiation isn't an issue, what if you don't like the naked aspects of the scanners?

Besides, if these scanners are such a security necessity, why are only about 20% of passengers selected for them anyway? If it's truly necessary for safety, than there's about an 80% chance the next terrorist won't even go through them. Or maybe it's just a show conveniently designed to line the pockets of the scanner lobbyists who just happen to have their CEO as the former government security head Chertoff? Not that it matters, because the TSA hasn't stopped any terrorists since it was formed, anyway. The Christmas Day bomber they keep referring to was caught by the passengers, and at any rate didn't even board the plane in America. When Ralph Nader and Rand Paul or Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann are expressing the same outrage at this kind of stuff, you have to admit that something is terribly, terribly wrong.

The TSA has finally stepped over a line. Take off my shoes? OK, fine. Make me throw away my tiny bit of toothpaste? Whatever. Have my wife groped by a stranger who hates the procedure as much as she does? I DON'T THINK SO. Thousands of plane flights have been safe every day since before and after 9/11 without these scanners and enhanced patdowns, and that's a risk I and many other Americans are perfectly willing to take. I'm so glad that this tipping point has generated so much outrage at the continued encroachment of privacy in the name of security. The horror stories of cancer survivors showing their prosthetics or being covered in urine just serves to illustrate how ridiculous and useless these policies are. I just hope the TSA backs down before the net loss of flyers leads to a net increase of road congestion and traffic accidents.... If you're so afraid of terrorists that you're willing to let the TSA rob us of any and all imaginable rights, then how can you be brave enough to leave your house each day and spend time in all of the places that are so less guarded than any airport or airplane?

TSA, thanks for uniting the country. And don't touch my junk.

bravo!

[WTG]

Which terrorists attempts? And don't include the ones where it was the passengers who actually foiled whatever attempt there was.

And the fact that you're willing to give up your civil rights because you have such a fear of "terrorism" is a little chilling. Yeah yeah, I know. Flying is not a right, it's a privilege.

The attempts you don't hear about. When my mom worked in the Phoenix airport before we moved, she found a detonator, a gun, and a clip of bullets, among many other things during her time there. These things don't get into the news, but they are found and stopped.

And there are no civil rights involved here. Show me where the constitution addresses this issue. The "civil rights" and "unconstitutional" arguments are thrown out so many times with no relevance because they sound good.

[WTG]

That sad, and scary, part of all this is that the media is causing such a frenzy, this is going to end with a TSA worker (who have no say in the policies, they are just working for a job they see as helpful at a time when the economy is bad so they couldn't find another if they wanted to) being shot and killed by some nutjob "activist" trying to make a point. It disgusts me that people are getting so riled up about this that it seems inevitable.

[apoemtothedead]

The attempts you don't hear about. When my mom worked in the Phoenix airport before we moved, she found a detonator, a gun, and a clip of bullets, among many other things during her time there. These things don't get into the news, but they are found and stopped.

And there are no civil rights involved here. Show me where the constitution addresses this issue. The "civil rights" and "unconstitutional" arguments are thrown out so many times with no relevance because they sound good.
Did she find these with the help of a full body scanner and extreme pat down or before these things were put into place?

[Jason Tate]

Why don't we make Breathalyzers to start car engines a requirement for all automobiles? After all, more people are killed in the U.S. each year by drunk drivers than terrorists, and we never know who the drunk driver could be...and it could be anyone! Don't like that it's infringing on your rights? Fuck you, you can walk. Driving's not a right.
I'd support this.

[WTG]

Did she find these with the help of a full body scanner and extreme pat down or before these things were put into place?

These pat downs started about two weeks, so I wonder...

Give them some time.

[Zeran]

AWESOME
hahahahah

[WTG]

I'd support this.

As would I.

[apoemtothedead]

These pat downs started about two weeks, so I wonder...

Give them some time.
Ever heard the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fondle somebody's junk." Domestic airport security appeared to have been working very well without these intrusive measures, so why do we need them?

[loveisdead]

Ever heard the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fondle somebody's junk." Domestic airport security appeared to have been working very well without these intrusive measures, so why do we need them?

I can't wait to steal that "saying."

[Jason Tate]

I think the obvious answer is that just because something "worked" (eh, correlation does not equal causation) in the past doesn't mean that we shouldn't be adapting and attempting to improve as we learn new techniques terrorists are possibly using or we have improved technology.

This new shit will probably (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/new-poll-suggests-shift-in-public-views-on-t-s-a-procedures/) be gone by the new year anyway. I'm excited for my free reach around tomorrow. Should I tip?

[WTG]

What Tate said. The other side isn't going to stop trying to come up with ways around our security, so we can't have a "wait until it fails" mentality about it.

[apoemtothedead]

I think the obvious answer is that just because something "worked" (eh, correlation does not equal causation) in the past doesn't mean that we shouldn't be adapting and attempting to improve as we learn new techniques terrorists are possibly using or we have improved technology.

This new shit will probably (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/new-poll-suggests-shift-in-public-views-on-t-s-a-procedures/) be gone by the new year anyway. I'm excited for my free reach around tomorrow. Should I tip?
9 years since the creation of TSA (and unless I'm forgetting something there haven't been any egregious failures). Millions of passengers a year. I'd argue that's enough of a sample size to say correlation does equal causation.

[Jason Tate]

9 years since the creation of TSA (and unless I'm forgetting something there haven't been any egregious failures). Millions of passengers a year. I'd argue that's enough of a sample size to say correlation does equal causation.
No better of an argument than saying "Bush helped prevent any terrorists attacks after 9/11." Bad argument then, bad argument now. And, ultimately - all variables aside, still irrelevant.

[WTG]

This new shit will probably (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/new-poll-suggests-shift-in-public-views-on-t-s-a-procedures/) be gone by the new year anyway. I'm excited for my free reach around tomorrow. Should I tip?

Come up with a good one-liner after it's over if you are chosen. The TSA people hate doing it as much as you hate having it done, and a lot of them have a good sense of humor. If I ever get this done to me, I'd wanna say "was it good for you too?" or something like that with a smirk afterward.

[Jason Tate]

Come up with a good one-liner after it's over if you are chosen. The TSA people hate doing it as much as you hate having it done, and a lot of them have a good sense of humor. If I ever get this done to me, I'd wanna say "was it good for you too?" or something like that with a smirk afterward.
My airport (http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-18/travel/airports.with.body.scanners_1_full-body-scanning-screen-passengers-cleveland-hopkins-international-airport?_s=PM:TRAVEL) doesn't even have the body scanners.

[apoemtothedead]

No better of an argument than saying "Bush helped prevent any terrorists attacks after 9/11." Bad argument then, bad argument now. And, ultimately - all variables aside, still irrelevant.
No, that's a different argument. Yours implies there would have been some terrorist attacks. Mine does not. TSA is taking away weapons and my mom's snow globe because it contains water from everyday citizens. You don't need a foiled terrorist attempt to show TSA is doing their job with the old measures in place.

[Jason Tate]

No, that's a different argument. Yours implies there would have been some terrorist attacks. Mine does not. TSA is taking away weapons and my mom's snow globe because it contains water from everyday citizens. You don't need a foiled terrorist attempt to show TSA is doing their job with the old measures in place.
You seem to be crafting an argument against yourself...

[apoemtothedead]

You seem to be crafting an argument against yourself...
How so?

[Jason Tate]

How so?

Your last sentence?

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Alot of people are complaining and questioning if the TSA has a Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy with its officers and whether any open homosexuals are giving the pat downs.

[Jason Tate]

Alot of people are complaining and questioning if the TSA has a Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy with its officers and whether any open homosexuals are giving the pat downs.

Oh come on. Let's make um wear badges. Maybe a star or something...

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/1e9ad8bd-1fc3-4add-a5aa-7da5bf91a787.jpg

[WTG]

Oh, is it time to go find every fake story we can about this matter now?

[Jason Tate]

Random comment: I'm tired of the "terrorists win" meme. I highly doubt they give a shit if we have to "sacrifice our privacy" -- they want us dead or converted. They're not celebrating a "win" each time someone gets body scanned.

[thepianominstre]

I'd support this.

Yeah, so good intentions on Breathalyzer stuff, but that just creates incentives for drunk drivers to nab sober folks to get the car started. "Hey, kid, come over here real quick so daddy can take us home." And the more you complicate the system to force it to work as intended, the more money and time costs you add to driving.

Whether it's flying or driving or whatever, there is a point at which a government can try so hard to protect life that such life wouldn't be worth living. IMO the TSA is currently way past that point.

[caveBEAR]

Yeah, so good intentions on Breathalyzer stuff, but that just creates incentives for drunk drivers to nab sober folks to get the car started. "Hey, kid, come over here real quick so daddy can take us home." And the more you complicate the system to force it to work as intended, the more money and time costs you add to driving.

Whether it's flying or driving or whatever, there is a point at which a government can try so hard to protect life that such life wouldn't be worth living. IMO the TSA is currently way past that point.

Wow, holy hyberbole, Batman!

[lovely864md]

My biggest problem with the whole thing is the lack of background checks, training, and policing of the TSA officers who are given the liberty to do this all. I also have a problem with the backscatter images and the "enhanced patdowns", but I would be much more comfortable with their implementation if I felt like they were being used by people qualified with the power to use them.

[lauren1234]

When I was at the airport on Saturday there was an elderly lady in a wheelchair who clearly couldn't stand up to do the body scanner so she had to have the pat down and from what I saw it was very uncomfortable, even to watch. She was getting her breasts patted down to what looked like more than necessary. I felt bad for her. There was also this other lady who had a brace on her leg and they made her remove it. Honestly, is this all necessary? Obviously when people have a disability like that and are being out in uncomfortable situations there is something not right there. I forgot the website but, one day last week me and my roommate where wondering if the machines can detect a tampon. They can but they can't tell the difference between that and a stick of dynamite up someones vagina. That's really reassuring, huh?

[lovely864md]

This is a pretty interesting article from a police officer about her experience, and her comparisons to police procedures. I especially like the points she makes about how the TSA agents performing this search are clearly not well trained in how to do it and how their process is so incredibly flawed.

http://gizmodo.com/5696160/why-the-tsa-could-lead-us-to-public-rebellion-or-a-terrorist-attack

[Jason Tate]

Yeah, so good intentions on Breathalyzer stuff, but that just creates incentives for drunk drivers to nab sober folks to get the car started. "Hey, kid, come over here real quick so daddy can take us home." And the more you complicate the system to force it to work as intended, the more money and time costs you add to driving.

Whether it's flying or driving or whatever, there is a point at which a government can try so hard to protect life that such life wouldn't be worth living. IMO the TSA is currently way past that point.
I'm fine adding money and time costs to driving.

[MarsEatWorld]

When I was at the airport on Saturday there was an elderly lady in a wheelchair who clearly couldn't stand up to do the body scanner so she had to have the pat down and from what I saw it was very uncomfortable, even to watch. She was getting her breasts patted down to what looked like more than necessary. I felt bad for her. There was also this other lady who had a brace on her leg and they made her remove it. Honestly, is this all necessary? Obviously when people have a disability like that and are being out in uncomfortable situations there is something not right there. I forgot the website but, one day last week me and my roommate where wondering if the machines can detect a tampon. They can but they can't tell the difference between that and a stick of dynamite up someones vagina. That's really reassuring, huh?
hahahaha
they didn't stop me yesterday

[thepianominstre]

I'm fine adding money and time costs to driving.

Then how about also making it impossible for cars to drive over 5 MPH (or even 10 MPH) so that if people do hit each other, they won't get hurt very badly? I bet even you have limits to the extent of the money and time costs you'd be willing to add to driving to make it incrementally safer, and we're just differing on degrees here.

I haven't completely thought this through yet but I'm stating it for now: The more you try to force behavior from potential lawbreakers as opposed to merely enforcing the law and penalizing them, the more you penalize law followers (let's say the Breathalyzer equipment breaks down and now you can't start your otherwise perfect car... ) as well as increasing their incentives to not bother. 1) The risk of getting hit by a car at 60MPH is worth the freedom of myself to drive at 60MPH. 2) The risk of a drunk driving a car and hitting me is worth the freedom of myself to start a car without the money and time costs of Breathalyzer equipment. 3) The risk of getting on a plane with a terrorist who hasn't been completely patted down is worth the freedom of myself not being completely patted down. Even if you don't agree to the degree that I do, I think you would agree to the principle at least at level 1?

[lauren1234]

hahahaha
they didn't stop me yesterday

When I went they didn't stop me either. I was in the line and then they opened another lane without the scanners which I thought was strange.

[open mind]

putting a couple armed guards on each flight would be much cheaper and less degrading to all.....but those body scanner makers have good lobbyists.

[MarsEatWorld]

When I went they didn't stop me either. I was in the line and then they opened another lane without the scanners which I thought was strange.
I mean, I went through the scanners but the line right next to me didn't. It was weird.

[lauren1234]

I mean, I went through the scanners but the line right next to me didn't. It was weird.

I think if they are going to have them they need to have them in all the lines. It doesn't make much sense to not have them in all of them.

[3eb23]

check it

http://www.prisonplanet.com/mother-kept-in-glass-cage-for-almost-an-hour-by-tsa-for-resisting-over-breast-milk.html

[Jason Tate]

Then how about also making it impossible for cars to drive over 5 MPH (or even 10 MPH) so that if people do hit each other, they won't get hurt very badly? I bet even you have limits to the extent of the money and time costs you'd be willing to add to driving to make it incrementally safer, and we're just differing on degrees here.

I haven't completely thought this through yet but I'm stating it for now: The more you try to force behavior from potential lawbreakers as opposed to merely enforcing the law and penalizing them, the more you penalize law followers (let's say the Breathalyzer equipment breaks down and now you can't start your otherwise perfect car... ) as well as increasing their incentives to not bother. 1) The risk of getting hit by a car at 60MPH is worth the freedom of myself to drive at 60MPH. 2) The risk of a drunk driving a car and hitting me is worth the freedom of myself to start a car without the money and time costs of Breathalyzer equipment. 3) The risk of getting on a plane with a terrorist who hasn't been completely patted down is worth the freedom of myself not being completely patted down. Even if you don't agree to the degree that I do, I think you would agree to the principle at least at level 1?
Nah, I won't go down that slippery slope. I said what I was ok with ... don't make it something else.

[jaimage]

putting a couple armed guards on each flight would be much cheaper and less degrading to all.....but those body scanner makers have good lobbyists.

That's all it comes down to, really. The policy-makers have a hand in making some good money off these new machines. Instead of focusing on people's naked bodies they should be directing their energy toward baggage screening, where badness could actually get through.

[Jason Tate]

That's all it comes down to, really. The policy-makers have a hand in making some good money off these new machines. Instead of focusing on people's naked bodies they should be directing their energy toward baggage screening, where badness could actually get through.
Correct me if I'm wrong ... but hasn't virtually all of the (at least published reports) recent "badness" been on people's bodies, not in bags?

[Simulcast]

Correct me if I'm wrong ... but hasn't virtually all of the (at least published reports) recent "badness" been on people's bodies, not in bags?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8099937/Yemen-cargo-plane-plot-one-of-the-bombs-travelled-on-two-passenger-jets.html

?

[Simulcast]

putting a couple armed guards on each flight would be much cheaper and less degrading to all.....but those body scanner makers have good lobbyists.

We finally agree on something.

[Jason Tate]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8099937/Yemen-cargo-plane-plot-one-of-the-bombs-travelled-on-two-passenger-jets.html

?
Thought the middle east was supposed to have the best screeners?

[Simulcast]

Cargo plane?

Pretty sure it mentions that a bomb got on a couple of passenger flights.


Edit: YOU ALWAYS DO THIS TO ME

[vaguestcargo]

So a couple of coworkers have flown between SeaTac and Sky Harbor in the last few weeks and said they hadn't been scanned OR searched at either airport. I find this particularly interesting because PHX was one of the first to 'try out' the scanners, and SeaTac just got their hands on them, so I figured both would be inclined to use them for different reasons, but neither did. This is more interesting to me because I'm making the same trip in two weeks. Could this be a result of the TSA preemptive strike on that whole 'opt out day' thing?

[captivewear]

Simple solution.
-Bomb and drug sniffing dogs
-Simple interrogating of passengers as they arrive to the airport similar to when you cross the border to another country. This will help prevent some of the amateur type terrorist or drug smuggler etc. A lot of other countries do this and it works very well.
-Putting an armed marshall on every single flight.
-Thick bullet prof doors.

I do find it very interesting that everyone is so scared about being attacked by terrorist when the US government is the biggest terrorist group on the planet.

[Scrandon]

Edgy as fuck.

[caveBEAR]

I do find it very interesting that everyone is so scared about being attacked by terrorist when the US government is the biggest terrorist group on the planet.

:yawn:

[jaimage]

Correct me if I'm wrong ... but hasn't virtually all of the (at least published reports) recent "badness" been on people's bodies, not in bags?

Like what? They keep talking about the "Christmas Day Bomber" as an example of the need for body scanners, but he was let on a plane due to an intelligence failure not a screening failure. Other than that, how many people do you think die every year from these kinds of "terrorist attacks"? Do you honestly think this is an efficient use of our government's time and money? Especially with stuff like this (http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=234401), terrorists will have no problem getting around these scanners. It's utterly ridiculous that this is even an issue.


I do find it very interesting that everyone is so scared about being attacked by terrorist when the US government is the biggest terrorist group on the planet.

Truth. Maybe the better deterrence to terror attacks from these groups would be us NOT bombing their countries' civilians. Just a thought. We're fighting a border-less "War on Terror", it's an endless cycle of aggression that doesn't get us anywhere and distracts everyone from the issues that really matter.

[3eb23]

So a couple of coworkers have flown between SeaTac and Sky Harbor in the last few weeks and said they hadn't been scanned OR searched at either airport. I find this particularly interesting because PHX was one of the first to 'try out' the scanners, and SeaTac just got their hands on them, so I figured both would be inclined to use them for different reasons, but neither did. This is more interesting to me because I'm making the same trip in two weeks. Could this be a result of the TSA preemptive strike on that whole 'opt out day' thing?

that is interesting. i do know on the opt out day, many people reported scanners were roped off and there were less intrusive pat downs. i think this was probably to counteract the movement and make opt out day ineffective. the mainstream media certainly reported that few people were opting out. well this was because they didn't get a chance to. crazy thing is if these scanners and intrusive pat downs are so essential to safety as the tsa claims, then why on the busiest travel day of the year were they roping off scanners and performing less intrusive pat downs?

[deFobbed14yrs]

Seriously, just put trained police guards on planes and grandma doesn't have to be awkwardly patted down anymore.

[Simulcast]

Seriously, just put trained police guards on planes and grandma doesn't have to be awkwardly patted down anymore.

I would add profiling from known terrorist countries to this as well. There is no reason your grandmother or 3 year-old son should have to be patted down.

[deFobbed14yrs]

I would add profiling from known terrorist countries to this as well. There is no reason your grandmother or 3 year-old son should have to be patted down.

I think normal metal detectors are fine, like ones that really do work and can detect anything strapped down to anyone. But i always felt like if a terrorist had a bomb strapped to him in an airport, he would blow up in the airport, not the plane. He/she could do so much more damage in an airport than in the sky. Like on 9/11, the guys didn't want to blow up the planes, they were aiming for buildings. If we had air marshals on all planes, that couldn't happen since the terrorist would be taken down by the air marshal.

[jaimage]

I would add profiling from known terrorist countries to this as well. There is no reason your grandmother or 3 year-old son should have to be patted down.

And what makes a country "terrorist"? That's racial profiling you're suggesting.

[Simulcast]

And what makes a country "terrorist"? That's racial profiling you're suggesting.


No, it's not. It's profiling by country. I'm talking about places like Yemen and Somalia.

[yves.]

Which terrorists attempts? And don't include the ones where it was the passengers who actually foiled whatever attempt there was.

And the fact that you're willing to give up your civil rights because you have such a fear of "terrorism" is a little chilling. Yeah yeah, I know. Flying is not a right, it's a privilege.

This is incorrect. Traveling is a right, and flying is a method of travel, therefore flying is a right.

As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

[Jason Tate]

Like what?
I thought my question was straight forward.

They keep talking about the "Christmas Day Bomber" as an example of the need for body scanners, but he was let on a plane due to an intelligence failure not a screening failure. I know, which is why I said "hasn't virtually all of the (at least published reports) recent "badness" been on people's bodies, not in bags?" -- talking about where people are hiding things. Shoe bomber, etc.

Other than that, how many people do you think die every year from these kinds of "terrorist attacks"? Hardly any. Still fine with their being security measures in place.

Do you honestly think this is an efficient use of our government's time and money? Their annual budget in 2009 was $8.1 billion. That's paltry in comparison to other wastes of spending ... sure, I think that's efficient.

Especially with stuff like this (http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=234401), terrorists will have no problem getting around these scanners. Worldnetdaily? Really?

Well, they haven't gotten around them yet ... you can't play both sides of the aisle. So?

It's utterly ridiculous that this is even an issue. Agreed. People freaking out about such a non-issue are ridiculous.

[Jason Tate]

This is incorrect. Traveling is a right, and flying is a method of travel, therefore flying is a right.



http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html
You can travel other ways. Trying to equate the two is a poor interpretation of that case. B52 bombers are a method of travel. Using one is not a right.

[mena]

This is incorrect. Traveling is a right, and flying is a method of travel, therefore flying is a right.



http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html
I didn't originally say that. I was in a way mocking the person who was claiming that the new TSA regulations are necessary and that it's not a right that we get to fly.

[Wasupi]

I don't see how flying is a right at all... as i see it, if you don't like the rules they make, drive

[yves.]

You can travel other ways. Flying is not a right; and trying to equate the two is a poor interpretation of that case.

Not if you have to go overseas. It's basic logic: a dog is an animal, and a retriever is a type of dog; therefore, a retriever is an animal. The tea party is ridiculous, sarah palin is a tea party member. Therefore, sarah palin is ridculous. I understand that the argument for flying being a right goes deeper than that, but it's necessary for certain people to get around using that method.

[yves.]

I didn't originally say that. I was in a way mocking the person who was claiming that the new TSA regulations are necessary and that it's not a right that we get to fly.

Oh, my bad.

[Jason Tate]

Not if you have to go overseas. It's basic logic: a dog is an animal, and a retriever is a type of dog; therefore, a retriever is an animal. The tea party is ridiculous, sarah palin is a tea party member. Therefore, sarah palin is ridculous. I understand that the argument for flying being a right goes deeper than that, but it's necessary for certain people to get around using that method.
Uh, sure you can ... we have boats.

Bad logic is bad.

Going in to a bar on a Friday involves a more stringent pat down. Unclench.

In 1973 the 9th Circuit Court rules on U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2005/06/07/0430243.pdf), there are key pieces of wording that give the TSA its power to search essentially any way they choose to. The key wording in this ruling includes “noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.”

:yawn:

U.S. vs Davis was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court in 1986 in U.S. vs Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d 899, 901 with this ruling “To judge reasonableness, it is necessary to balance the right to be free of intrusion with society’s interest in safe air travel.”

Have an issue? Orrganize and file a legal action seeking to overturn or alter the U.S. vs David ruling by the 9th Circuit Court. That's your legal reality.

Want to ride a bike? Wear a helmet. Want to drive a car? Pass the tests. There are barriers for entry into virtually all forms of "travel."

Deal with them or not - your choice.

[mena]

Random comment: I'm tired of the "terrorists win" meme. I highly doubt they give a shit if we have to "sacrifice our privacy" -- they want us dead or converted. They're not celebrating a "win" each time someone gets body scanned.
Just wondering about that statement right there. Do you mean they want innocent Americans dead? If that were the case, wouldn't we see these attacks happening more often in places where it would be easier to accomplish a massive attack on people? Take Black Friday for example. They could have set off bombs in a mall filled with hundreds of people and their goal to see us dead would have been accomplished. I'm not saying I know the true intentions as to why the terrorists do what they do, but it doesn't seem to be that they just want to go around killing Americans for the fun of it.

[jaimage]

I thought my question was straight forward.

I know, which is why I said "hasn't virtually all of the (at least published reports) recent "badness" been on people's bodies, not in bags?" -- talking about where people are hiding things. Shoe bomber, etc.

Hardly any. Still fine with their being security measures in place.

Their annual budget in 2009 was $8.1 billion. That's paltry in comparison to other wastes of spending ... sure, I think that's efficient.

Worldnetdaily? Really?

Well, they haven't gotten around them yet ... you can't play both sides of the aisle. So?

Agreed. People freaking out about such a non-issue are ridiculous.

Okay, definitely not the best source to link to. I'll concede you that.

The fact remains, though - these machines are ineffective. I'm fine with security measures at the airport, but this is a misdirection of resources. That's all I'm saying. The Christmas Day bomber smuggled explosives in his *underwear* (which is why I used it as an example) but he was let on the plane due to an intelligence failure, not a screening failure.

As for "they haven't gotten around them yet" - http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk/tigerrepellantrock/

[Jason Tate]

Just wondering about that statement right there. Do you mean they want innocent Americans dead?
In part.

If that were the case, wouldn't we see these attacks happening more often in places where it would be easier to accomplish a massive attack on people? Take Black Friday for example. They could have set off bombs in a mall filled with hundreds of people and their goal to see us dead would have been accomplished. I'm not saying I know the true intentions as to why the terrorists do what they do, but it doesn't seem to be that they just want to go around killing Americans for the fun of it.
It's not easy to pull off massive attacks. Look at Portland last weekend. Someone tried. And we rarely hear about the failed attempts. I don't think it's for the "fun" of it. But the terrorists want to kill Americans. Not sure how that's even questioned. And my point of that post was that killing Americans is what they are going to consider "winning" not getting every flier a free reach around.

[Jason Tate]

Okay, definitely not the best source to link to. I'll concede you that.

The fact remains, though - these machines are ineffective. I'm fine with security measures at the airport, but this is a misdirection of resources. That's all I'm saying. The Christmas Day bomber smuggled explosives in his *underwear* (which is why I used it as an example) but he was let on the plane due to an intelligence failure, not a screening failure.

As for "they haven't gotten around them yet" - http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk/tigerrepellantrock/
They're ineffective in some ways, effective in others. They're trying to use newer technologies - and they're at least making moves to try and stay ahead of the game. I flew over Thanksgiving, this shit is such a non-issue it's not even funny: that's my point. I don't get one ounce of the outrage over this. Talk about a misdirection of resources. Every second someone is complaining about the TSA - especially those that don't fly or fly once or twice a year - is a waste of breath.

Yeah, I know, which is why I said you can't play both sides of that coin.

[mena]

In part.


It's not easy to pull off massive attacks. Look at Portland last weekend. Someone tried. And we rarely hear about the failed attempts. I don't think it's for the "fun" of it. But they want to kill Americans. Not sure how that's even questioned.
The 9/11 hijackers attacked the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and tried and failed to hit the Capitol. Their main goal that day was to attack symbols of the American economy, military, and government. I think that's their biggest issue with much of the world. The governments of the countries, not the people.

[Jason Tate]

The 9/11 hijackers attacked the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and tried and failed to hit the Capitol. Their main goal that day was to attack symbols of the American economy, military, and government. I think that's their biggest issue with much of the world. The governments of the countries, not the people.
And they achieve these goals by terrorizing the people ... blowing up a building with zero deaths doesn't do much. And my point of that post was that killing Americans (and in the original post conversion) is what they are going to consider "winning" not getting every flier a free reach around. The entire point of that post was discussing this "TSA searches = terrorists are winning" meme.

[Scrandon]

Democracy: "...a government by the people, for the people..." etc.y

[Simulcast]

The 9/11 hijackers attacked the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and tried and failed to hit the Capitol. Their main goal that day was to attack symbols of the American economy, military, and government. I think that's their biggest issue with much of the world. The governments of the countries, not the people.

This is wrong.

[Scrandon]

If a terrorist get us to change our behavior due to us being in fear of attack (terror), how is that not a win?

Granted, TSA searches are not what they had in mind, it does still show that their methods are working in one way or another. Gives them the motivation to continue with the hope of even bigger changes to come, etc.

[Jason Tate]

If a terrorist get us to change our behavior due to us being in fear of attack (terror), how is that not a win?

Granted, TSA searches are not what they had in mind, it does still show that their methods are working in one way or another. Gives them the motivation to continue with the hope of even bigger changes to come, etc.
That's like having zero turnovers and losing by 100. That's not a win. Changing a few security procedures is not a win. Hell, remaining stagnant is more of a win.

Their methods aren't working in any real way. None of their real goals can be considered attained. A TSA screening is not showcasing any real change. I get the same pat down before a concert. The idea that this is even on the radar when it comes to "motivation" is laughable.

[Scrandon]

That's like having zero turnovers and losing by 100. That's not a win. Changing a few security procedures is not a win. Hell, remaining stagnant is more of a win.
If you oversimplify that much it sounds all great. Some of the security procedures have sacrificed legal principles that this country has held dear for a long time. Talks of profiling are ridiculous and the implementation of such procedures would embody a complete abandonment of our ideals (not saying you advocated it, others have).

Their methods aren't working in any real way. None of their real goals can be considered attained. A TSA screening is not showcasing any real change. I get the same pat down before a concert. The idea that this is even on the radar when it comes to "motivation" is laughable.
PATRIOT Act, torture, over-extension of military forces.

[mena]

And they achieve these goals by terrorizing the people ... blowing up a building with zero deaths doesn't do much. And my point of that post was that killing Americans (and in the original post conversion) is what they are going to consider "winning" not getting every flier a free reach around. The entire point of that post was discussing this "TSA searches = terrorists are winning" meme.
I understand that was a minor part of the entire post, but it caught my eye and I just wanted you to elaborate on it a little. That's all.
This is wrong.
Yeah, they're angry with the people for being so accepting of homosexuals and having such loose women.
/sarcasm

Why would my point be so wrong?

[Simulcast]

Why would my point be so wrong?

Because the victims of all of the attacks since 9/11 have been civilians, not government officials or economic power players. The foiled attack last Christmas was against American citizens. The Portland Bomber targeted American citizens. The JFK airport plot was targeted against American citizens. The Time Square Bomber targeted American citizens. The Shoe Bomber targeted American citizens etc.

The goal of the terrorist is to kill or convert us, period.

[Jason Tate]

If you oversimplify that much it sounds all great. Some of the security procedures have sacrificed legal principles that this country has held dear for a long time.
Not they haven't. Name one legal principle sacrificed. As previously pointed out - they have the legal backing to do this.

Talks of profiling are ridiculous and the implementation of such procedures would embody a complete abandonment of our ideals (not saying you advocated it, others have).
Profiling already occurs.

PATRIOT Act, torture, over-extension of military forces.
The second two would happen no matter what. None of that is a "win" for terrorists. Giving the government more control is not the goal of the terrorists.

[DeviateRogue]

If a terrorist get us to change our behavior due to us being in fear of attack (terror), how is that not a win?

Granted, TSA searches are not what they had in mind, it does still show that their methods are working in one way or another. Gives them the motivation to continue with the hope of even bigger changes to come, etc.

So in theory, the War on Terror means the terrorists won?

[Scrandon]

Not they haven't. Name one legal principle sacrificed. As previously pointed out - they have the legal backing to do this.
Habeas corpus? Probable cause? Anyone?
Profiling already occurs.
At least it's not legal or the official policy.
The second two would happen no matter what. None of that is a "win" for terrorists. Giving the government more control is not the goal of the terrorists. You can argue hypotheticals all you want, doesn't change what actually happened.

[Scrandon]

So in theory, the War on Terror means the terrorists won?
I don't know, do you think their goal was to be in a full-fledged war with the United States? If so, yea they did pretty well.

I honestly don't know what the fuck motivated these guys. Every group with their own agenda has a different reason for why the terrorists get out of bed each day. I don't know what the fuck their goals or motivations are, but I do know that if we sacrifice principles in fear, we have been terrorized - simple definition.

[KingsCrossing]

Yeah, they're angry with the people for being so accepting of homosexuals and having such loose women

Pretty much.