TSA authorities can fine you $10,000 for leaving the airport
After refusing to go through the body scanner, and refusing to have his junk touched by a TSA agent,
a man is threatened by airport security, who tell him he'll face a $10,000 fine and civil lawsuit.
They've gone too far. I'm actually tempted to action about this. Friends of mine are picketing/leafletting PHL the day before T-giving.
there's apparently quite a backlash about the scanning machines--pilots refusing, grass roots movement, etc. Although this guy went in there primed to make a scene, imo, so I'm not too sympathetic to him.
He says he went there because the TSA website indicated there was no xray there.
There were 13,531,058 commercial passenger flights in 2008. If you take that number and multiply it out over the last 8 years, when security had gotten a lot tighter since 9/11, you get about 100 million US flights since 9/11 with not a single plane taken down by terrorists.
The tightened security since 9/11 has worked. Not a single plane has come down. 100 million!
The numbers are not a compelling argument that we need these new extremely invasive security techniques.
Our founding fathers wouldn't be able to recognize us. What a bunch of pussies this country has become. We are so afraid of an infinitesimal risk of terrorism that we are willing to give up all our personal freedoms.
[YOUTUBE]2TCHSGvNwRY[/YOUTUBE]
TSA screeners pat down three-year-old, putting her into a screaming fit of terror. Do you feel safe now?
FWIW - Anyone think terrorists wouldn't use a kid?
And even at three she looks like a little Muslim, doncha think?
Shrug.
It's a three year old having a tantrum.
I'm not saying the checks are necessary for security, but if the checks are decided to be necessary then parents need to be aware and able to deal with it. I am assuming this child did not have any kind of syndrome that produced this reaction of course.
I've seen children in similar screaming fits in supermarkets/ shopping centres/ pubs - the culprits? Their own mothers.
I suggest that a certain amount of getting precious about children has lead to the increase in the compensation culture. Technically I am not supposed to hug or cuddle a child, touch their hair or help undressing (for PE) or dressing. In reality I do all of the above (inc wiping noses, washing off mud, admiring wobbly teeth etc) because children are people and in order to develop socially they need reactions to their behaviour.
Shrug.
It's a three year old having a tantrum.
(nods). oh . . . you mean the little girl?
I'd be happy to sacrifice my "modesty" in favor of not getting blown up. In fact, I'd prance naked through the airport if it would save lives. Don't be a pussy--go through the damn machine.
It's for crap like that is the reason I don't fly.
It's not sexual assault when the government does it.
As I said above - I remove children's clothes. It's certainly not sexual assault. At least draw the line at intention.
In which case, neither was the clip.
Based on the dude's description, he cashed in the ticket and was accosted by the TSA guys afterwards demanding that he return to the security checkpoint, which he no longer had reason to pass through, in fact, by TSA rules, since he wasn't a ticket holder, couldn't BE on the far side of the security checkpoint. I don't get how that would be a fine-able situation.
Do you ever put your hand directly on their genitals?
Quite possibly.
But it wasn't my intention.
I've never been in the situation where a child is screaming - I'd back off immediately if they were. But I've never worked in an airoprt where searching people has been deemed necessary.
I completely reject the idea that the person in the clip was copping a feel.
Our founding fathers wouldn't be able to recognize us. What a bunch of pussies this country has become. We are so afraid of an infinitesimal risk of terrorism that we are willing to give up all our personal freedoms.
I agree. But the other side of the coin is that we should not overreact when terrorism
does happen, which we do. Maybe we need to treat terrorism as a part of life.
As part of my job, I operate a metal detector, pass through and hand-held.
I also do physical searches. And you do have to "touch the junk" to complete them, otherwise you're not doing it right. I also search shoes, socks, and later in the process, property.
I find a lot of contraband, including drugs, knives and matches in areas that would be missed without a more thorough pat-down.
And no, I don't get that opportunity with dudes. You get a same sex searcher, although the observer can be opposite sex.
Are the full body scanners safe? There's honest disagreement on it, and even after I apply my skepticism filter, I can't say they're completely safe.
Especially for flight crews that have to go through them several times a day.
Based on the dude's description, he cashed in the ticket and was accosted by the TSA guys afterwards demanding that he return to the security checkpoint, which he no longer had reason to pass through, in fact, by TSA rules, since he wasn't a ticket holder, couldn't BE on the far side of the security checkpoint. I don't get how that would be a fine-able situation.
U.S. airline passengers near the security checkpoint can be searched any time and no longer can refuse consent by leaving the airport, the nation’s largest federal appeals court ruled Friday.
The decision (.pdf) by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the circuit’s 34-year-old precedent that over time was evolving toward limiting when passengers could refuse a search and leave the airport after they had checked their bags or placed items on the security screening X-ray machine. Citing threats of terrorism, the court ruled passengers give up all rights to be free of warrantless searches once a "passenger places hand luggage on a conveyor belt for inspection" or "passes though a magnetometer."
"…Requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world," Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the unanimous 15-judge panel. "Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by ‘electing not to fly’ on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found."
linkWell, those airlines had too many customers anyway. They could probably use a little less revenue at a time like this.
Just hurry up with the automated flying cars, already.
Well, those airlines had too many customers anyway. They could probably use a little less revenue at a time like this.
Just hurry up with the automated flying cars, already.
Bruce will send you the link. Mr. Clod may need to go out mountain biking ;););) before you can afford one probably.:eek:
For a flying car? ...That can be arranged.
You're being shortsighted, do you really want all those morons you see on the road, flying over your house? :eek:
The video guy is going to be investigated:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/nov/15/tsa-probe-scan-resistor/
Looks like they want to make an example out of him. "Don't test us or our patience". I applaud the guy for what he did, I doubt he will have any trouble finding affordable legal counsel if this goes to trial.
Good. Bring it on. They just signed their own death warrant. So to speak.
Yeh - keep pissing them off. :neutral:
He's one car accident/gas leak away from disappearing permanently. :greenface
I also read somewhere that in light of the backlash against these more invasive security measures, children under the age of 12 will not be patted down. So no more incidents like shown in the video above in the thread (now removed).
Saw a picture recently of an old nun in full habit forced to get up out of her wheel chair to be patted down because she refused to be seen naked on the machine. Disgusting.
Well isn't it religious extremists we're worried about?
There were 13,531,058 commercial passenger flights in 2008. If you take that number and multiply it out over the last 8 years, when security had gotten a lot tighter since 9/11, you get about 100 million US flights since 9/11 with not a single plane taken down by terrorists.
The tightened security since 9/11 has worked. Not a single plane has come down. 100 million!
The numbers are not a compelling argument that we need these new extremely invasive security techniques.
Our founding fathers wouldn't be able to recognize us. What a bunch of pussies this country has become. We are so afraid of an infinitesimal risk of terrorism that we are willing to give up all our personal freedoms.
You prolly should work in there somewhere the number of planes hijacked/taken out from American soil also. You know, to justify all this extra security. I don't know how to begin to come up w/that number, but, I bet it's comparably small.
[SIZE="1"]paraphrasing:[/SIZE]
Those who would give up freedom for security deserve neither.
[SIZE="1"]Where did I see that? The Cellar?[/SIZE]
I'll never fly again. Fuck 'em.
Fuck who? TSA won't care.
I'll never fly again. Fuck 'em.
Me too !
But this made me wonder...
Why are people willing to go through these invasions of privacy ?
1) Some may think it is to keep planes from flying into buildings.
But that can be prevented by a secure door into the pilots cabin.
2) Some may feel it is for personal security... i.e., I want
everyone else on my plane to be screened.
But if an airline can guarantee (#1), then the only problem is (#2)
Paper is much cheaper than whole-body scanners.
So why don't we start our own airline where NO passengers are screened... passengers must just sign an "informed consent".
1) Some may think it is to keep planes from flying into buildings.
But that can be prevented by a secure door into the pilots cabin.
You don't even need that. You just need the passengers to remember 9-11, and you won't get any more hijackings. 9-11 worked because the passengers expected the planes to land somewhere, followed by some sort of hostage negotiation. That is no longer the case.
(bombs are a different issue)
Whatever happened to that guy who tried to check out of the hospital and got the shit kicked out of him by the guards? This guy got off lightly.
(bombs are a different issue)
It's my understanding that this is what they're afraid of at this point. First, everyone on the plane dies of course, but second, if they time it right the whole thing comes crashing down into a major metropolitan area.
if they time it right the whole thing comes crashing down into a major metropolitan area.
Yeh like that's EVER happened?
Next thing you'll tell me is that they'll fly one into a building or something. :rolleyes:
Personally I think the "bad guys" are being short-sighted. You could do just as much damage by blowing yourself up at a major sporting event or at the mall on a crowded weekend, and that sort of thing would have a much greater impact on our collective mental state, since it would convince us that it could happen to anyone anywhere, not just in heavily-controlled air travel. I'm honestly stunned that it hasn't happened yet.
I totally agree! Seriously.
........................................
Personally I think the "bad guys" are being short-sighted. You could do just as much damage by blowing yourself up at a major sporting event or at the mall on a crowded weekend, and that sort of thing would have a much greater impact on our collective mental state, since it would convince us that it could happen to anyone anywhere, not just in heavily-controlled air travel. I'm honestly stunned that it hasn't happened yet.
Maybe because in their world people dying a sporting events is normal. Whereas planes falling is seen as an accomplishment, since all the enemies that have threatened them for the last hundred years have done so from the air.
[YOUTUBE]_O1SeCgNs2E[/YOUTUBE]
So the American public is going to buy into these scanners, eventually at court houses
and government buildings, and sporting events and schools ?
I suspect that eventually it will be easier to scare American women about radiation
(genetic or cancer) damage from the scanners than to scare of them about suicide bombers,
and that will be the end of the scanners.
Fuck who? TSA won't care.
Actually, I said that kinda wrong. Ima try that again:
I have previously made the personal decision that I have taken my last airplane flight already, so, fuck 'em.
I know they still won't care, but, fuck 'em anyway.
[SIZE="1"]Heheh, I said 'butfuck'.[/SIZE]
So the American public is going to buy into these scanners, eventually at court houses and government buildings, and sporting events and schools ?
The scanner at the courthouse is a different critter than the airport scanner, with much lower resolution. It doesn't show the naughty bits like it's big brethren.
Not yet, but coming to a neighborhood near you
Like this one?
Whoops -
Linky dinkPersonally I think the "bad guys" are being short-sighted. You could do just as much damage by blowing yourself up at a major sporting event or at the mall on a crowded weekend, and that sort of thing would have a much greater impact on our collective mental state, since it would convince us that it could happen to anyone anywhere, not just in heavily-controlled air travel. I'm honestly stunned that it hasn't happened yet.
Shhhhhhh! They ightmay be isteninglay
WARNING: Next post may be NSFW
Ok so there's this image making its rounds across the internet that has been presented as an actual scan from one of the airport body scanners now cropping up all over the globe in light of the recent staged terrorist incident. People in the truth and patriot communities have been using it as evidence that the scanners are more revealing than the mainstream media is telling us. While I have no doubt that the scanners are indeed more revealing than what the media is telling us, I've just learned this image is disinformation.
From Here:
You can tape a ceramic/plastic knife to the soles of your feet and get through this machine undetected.
You can keister as much plastic explosive as the underwear bomber and get through this machine undetected.
You can also take off from any international airport, as both the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber did.
And so it goes...
The degradations of passing through full-body scanners that provide naked pictures of you to Transportation Security Administration agents may not mean that the terrorists have won -- but they do mark victories for a few politically connected high-tech companies and their revolving-door lobbyists.
Many experts and critics suspect that the full-body "naked scanners" recently deployed at U.S. airports do little to make us more secure, and a lot to make us angry, embarrassed and late. For instance, the scanners can't see through skin, and so weapons or explosives can be hidden safely in body cavities.
But this is government we're talking about. A program or product doesn't need to be effective, it only needs to have a good lobby. And the naked-scanner lobby is small but well-connected.
link...and the other shoe falls ... AGAIN.
Ya think we'd get tired of this shit and do something about it.
If it's ineffective it will be dropped.
I'm not really fussed if someone gets to check my naked body. They'll see so many a day it'll be as exciting to them as it is to a doctor. Skin is skin - I wouldn't walk naked down the High Stree - and no-one would want me to - but I wouldn't feel violated by this any more than an X-Ray (suggested as two polar opposites).
I think it's sad that in the UK and the US (and probably eslewhere, I just don't know enough to comment) short-term knee-jerk reactions are all. Spend millions on detection, cut spending on prevention. But of course in both countries there's teh cry of, "Why should we help him? I didn't get that!"
Whichever progressive programme it refers to. People with a little bit more always resent those with less who get help. The response is always, "If I didn't work/ was a Muslim/ was black/ was an immigranthad too many kids/ didn't get married/ didn't have a car/ wasn't an addict [etc etc] I'd be much better off."
Put the money into proper schemes to integrate.
They might not work completely, but they are less invasive. And after all, this alienates far more people.
The terrorists that want to blow up planes, are a tiny minority of extremists. "Cut spending on prevention"? Not hardly, we're spending a fortune on prevention in Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
I'm flying to NJ next Tuesday. I'm hoping for a pat down and I plan on asking for a happy ending. ;)
Show up with a massive hard on Sheldon, that'll get their attention real quick.
I'm flying to NJ next Tuesday. I'm hoping for a pat down and I plan on asking for a happy ending. ;)
Oh please record that on your cell phone. That would be tha effing bomb
And then there's this:
[YOUTUBE]wRpWnK6Rg3E&start=48s[/YOUTUBE]
Shels, wrap your junk in Aluminium foil. Aluminum works too. :P
Probably the best defense is moans, sighs, and giggles, along with eye batting and lip licking.
Given the furore about gays in the military, they're probably more scared of you than a boner fide terrorist, Shel.
[COLOR="White"](deliberate misspelling)[/COLOR]
Looks to see if TSA is hiring in NJ .... ;)
Given the furore about gays in the military, they're probably more scared of you than a boner fide terrorist, Shel.
[COLOR="White"](deliberate misspelling)[/COLOR]
:lol:
I'm bugged by this guy's righteous "modesty" and snitfit. Who cares? the next time I fly, I'll have to go through one of these scanner thingies (they just put them in our airport). I know for certain I'll be up for either a pat down or a visual check because of my piercings.
Know. For Sure. So--I'll plan for this and make extra time for it. A hassle? Surely. Kind of unpleasant and humiliating? Yeah. Invasion of Privacy? Uh . . . maybe. I can't bring myself to care.
Travel is a hassle--this is not new. Plan for it. Cooperate. Just get me on the damn plane.
You may be forced to remove your piercings. Don't worry, they will give you pliers.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=d8vm3dt00&show_article=1yes, but that incident is old, and the TSA has changed their policy in response, to my knowledge.
I probably would make a stink if they tried to make me remove them. Pliers or no, there are some that I do not have the hand strength and/or leverage to remove myself.
[YOUTUBE]QhEMRSp7vaY[/YOUTUBE]
LATEST TSA SLOGANS ...
Can't see London, can't see France, not till we see your underpants
If we did our job any better we'd have to buy you dinner
Don't worry, my hands are still warm from the last guy
Wanna fly? Drop your fly
We are now free to move about your pants
It's not a grope, It's a freedom pat
When in doubt, we make you whip it out
You were a virgin?
We handle more packages than UPS....
FINALLY - A great alternative to body scanners at airports ...
The Israelis are developing an airport security device that eliminates the privacy concerns that come with full-body scanners at airports. It’s a booth you can step into that will not X-ray you; but, WILL detonate any explosive device you may have on you. They see this as a win-win for everyone, with none of this crap about racial profiling. It also would eliminate the costs of a long and expensive trial. Justice would be swift. Case closed!
You're in the airport terminal and you hear a muffled explosion. Shortly thereafter an announcement comes over the PA system: "Attention standby passengers ... we now have a seat available on flight number XXXX. Shalom!
HA! That would be too cool.
FWIW - I thought this was a well written article about the subject.
The feds are losing control of the debate over the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) new full-body scanners and enhanced pat-down techniques. A combination of well-intentioned privacy concerns and Internet lore could spell doom for the public acceptance of the new measures.
It's not so complicated. Upon reaching an airport's security area, travelers are asked to undergo a full-body scan by an Advanced Imaging Technology scanner. If they don't want the scan, they can opt for a pat-down by a TSA official. Simple, and yet there are so many rumors about this procedure that there's a need to separate fact from fiction.
Read more:It's not so complicated. Upon reaching an airport's security area, travelers are asked to undergo a full-body scan by an Advanced Imaging Technology scanner. If they don't want the scan, they can opt for a pat-down by a TSA official.
And if you don't want either, DON'T FLY! Take a bus, FFS.
Or protest to your Congressman about these overly invasive searches that trample civil liberties. Stand up for yourself or be cattle. Yesm Mr. Pretend Cop you sures knows what is best for me. I do whatever you wants me to mistah.
In other news, TSA screeners are just as poorly and inconsistently trained as you think:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/11/tsa-training/In my experience, the smaller the airport, the pettier the TSA guys. Just like the rent-a-cop at the apartment complex.
When traveling with a baby and 2 kids, I went through three major airports carrying multiple large containers of liquids, and an epi-pen with a needle in it. No one cared. It was only at the rinky-dink airport in Peoria-fuckin-Illinois, the one that gets a total of three flights in per day, that they harassed me about every baby bottle, every eczema skin cream, the epi-pen, and even made me pull the sleeping baby out of his sling in order to prove I wasn't hiding explosives underneath him.
Or protest to your Congressman about these overly invasive searches that trample civil liberties. Stand up for yourself or be cattle. Yesm Mr. Pretend Cop you sures knows what is best for me. I do whatever you wants me to mistah.
If you give up, the terrorists win. Think of the children!
No the terrorists are winning now. We are flushing down the toilet foundational pieces of our society in the name of pseudo-safety for an industry that is already among the safest ways to travel. Never mind that the infamous "underwear bomber" boarded the plane outside the US. Never mind that neither the scanners nor the pat downs can detect items hidden inside body cavities.
A good read:
http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter
A good video starring Adam Savage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3yaqq9Jjb4LOL on Adam Savage.
He could do a movie... The TSA at the end of the yellow brick road
FWIW - Anyone think terrorists wouldn't use a kid?
Toddlers are about the size of a suitcase nuke.
If you give up, the terrorists win. Think of the children!
Like the one strip searched for no reason, here.:eyebrow:
[YOUTUBE]XSQTz1bccL4[/YOUTUBE]
Yahoo News
* You may opt out of the AIT screening,
but you will be given the new standard pat-down, described above, instead.
You have the right to request that the standard pat-down be conducted in private
and you may have someone accompany you.
It is your right to be screened by an officer of the same gender.
* If you are selected for secondary screening because of an alarm or an anomaly in an AIT,
you may receive an even more thorough resolution pat-down than the new standard pat-down.
This resolution pat-down should only be done by a trained supervisor or lead officer
of the same gender in a private screening area.
* If you are selected for secondary screening because of a bulky clothing item,
you will receive the new standard pat-down by an officer of the same gender.
You may remind the officer to only pat-down the area in question.
I'll be searched no matter what, so no use in getting all twisted around about it.
Hidden items such as body piercings may result in your being directed to additional screening for a pat-down inspection. If selected for additional screening, you may ask to remove your body piercing in private as an alternative to the pat-down search.
From where I sit you keep on making this minor mistake, C.
The issue is not whether YOU, Cloud, PERSONALLY are fine with being seen naked or groped.
Also, the issue is not whether you think EVERYBODY should be fine with being seen naked or groped.
The issue is whether it is a violation of the rights of the people, and which rights the people are prepared to give up in order to travel, when private airport security is replaced by [strike]jackbooted government thugs[/strike] agents of the Federal government.
Put on your law hat:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It doesn't say "...unless you enter the airport."
Excellent post, UT... succinct and on point !
well, it's not a mistake to me--it's a personal issue. I get what you're saying, but am still not bothered by any supposed "violation of rights." I'd rather exercise my right to take reasonable safety precautions against being blown up. If they tried to make me remove jewelry then yes, I'd be upset--personally. Otherwise--not really.
I'd rather exercise my right to take reasonable safety precautions against being blown up.
That is not a "right".
What you are demanding is to force others to give up their rights through these screenings.
demanding? I think I'm more resigned. flying is not a "right" either.
Free travel is, and so is business i.e. the free exchange of goods, services, and money between myself and the airline company. Injecting these measures between those is a violation of those rights.
You cannot "ask" with the force of government; you can only require. At this time when you enter a security line and are selected, you are required to either be seen naked, be groped, or pay $11,000.
Flying is not a right (travel is), but the net of rights that surround it are up for grabs at this time. The TSA has stated that you voluntarily give up certain rights when entering the airport. Which ones? Let's have them clearly enumerated.
Because as long as an airport is in America, you cannot voluntarily give up your Constitutional rights there. That's the definition of America.
I can only plead for people not to be assholes about the current situation, which I think the original guy who made a stink was being.
Notice given, when they demand I give up my rights, I will be a relentless total fucking asshole about it.
thanks. remind me not to fly that day.
I understand there are larger issues here. My point is that I belong to a subset of people who will FOR SURE be subject to extra scrutiny, and as such I intend to plan for the extra hassle--that's all.
A new mother tries to explain to agents that her breast milk is considered a medical fluid by TSA regulations, and so according to their rules, it doesn't have to go through the xray machine and can be handled with alternate screening.
A TSA agent explains that they were waiting for her, that they remembered her from the previous week, saw her coming, and were going to have her arrested unless she played along.
They put her in a private screening area for an hour, treat her like shit, demand that she sit on the floor and pour her breast milk into eight separate 1.5 oz containers, ignore her sheet of printed TSA regulations, and force her to miss her flight. After repeated requests for the tape of the event, they sent her the tape... minus 30 incriminating minutes of it.
But look Cloud, they don't inconvenience the other passengers a bit. They screen everybody else while leaving her "in the box". You don't have to worry, you can fly without delay. I'm sure it's only the assholes and terrorists, like new concerned moms with breast milk, who get singled out.
You don't have to watch all 12 minutes. I have done it for you. You're welcome.
[YOUTUBE]2XhnZlmLGK8[/YOUTUBE]
And then there is this:
Makers of airport body scanners spent millions lobbying government: report
http://www.dotmed.com/news/story/14867/well, but -- I already know that the whole thing is a majorly humiliating PITA and the TSA people are assholes. I'm just not planning to be one about it myself. Yes, I understand my posts reflect a personal perspective rather than the larger picture.
I do not mean to make it about you C.
via
BoingBoing,
a woman went through the grope because her panty liner obscured the TSA scanner's view of her vulva.
This email isn't going to be as polished as I would normally send, but I'm upset and I don't want what happened to me to happen to anyone else (if I can stop it). I recently traveled via air, and was subjected to that new scanning device. "No problem," I thought. I was wearing jeans and a linen tanktop, bra, panties, and one camoflauge pantyliner. I'm a rule follower, so I never have any problems at the airport. Not this time. I was stopped, and then held for 15 mintues while they tried to find a female supervisor. I couldn't get to my bag, my shawl or my shoes; just standing there while the TSA agents kept me in one place. Now, I don't want this to be about bad TSA agents; they were doing their job, they were as delicate as they could be, etc., etc. But what ultimately happened is that I was subjected to search so invasive that I was left crying and dealing with memories that I thought had been dealt with years ago of prior sexual assualts. Why? Because of my flannel panty-liner. These new scans are so horrible that if you are wearing something unusual (like a piece of cloth on your panties) then you will be subjected to a search where a woman repeatedly has to check your "groin" while another woman watches on (two in my case - they were training in a new girl - awesome). So please, please, tell the ladies not to wear their liners at the airport (I didn't even have an insert in). I'm a strong, confident woman; I'm an Army vet (which is why those camo liners crack me up), I work full-time and go to graduate school full-time, I have a wonderful husband, and I don't take any nonsense from anyone. I don't dramatize, and I don't exaggerate. I'm trying to give you a sense of who I am so you won't think that this is a plea for attention, or a jumping on the bandwagon about the recent TSA proposed boycott. I just don't want another woman to have to go through the "patting down" because she didn't know that her glad-rag would be a matter of national security.
I do not mean to make it about you C.
You don't need to UT, she makes it about herself just fine. Go back and re-read her posts. Every time you mention the rights of OTHERS, she counters with how it doesn't bother HER.
yep, because I obviously have no compassion for my fellow citizens. and I'm a DES daughter, too. :3_eyes:
C'mon, you can't blame all that clinking and jingling on DES. :haha:
I guess I've just been off topic the whole time.
Good morning ladies and gents. Today we have a post, linked by BoingBoing, from a molecular biologist who looks at the TSA backscatter scanning machines and tries to determine whether they are safe.
http://myhelicaltryst.blogspot.com/2010/11/tsa-x-ray-backscatter-body-scanner.html?spref=fb
It's hard to excerpt, but the bottom line is, "the jury is still out on whether these machines are safe or even could be made safe for this application."
This is a tough subject, because it is close to conspiracy theory when one actually questions the official line. I find most conspiracy theories to be near crazy. How could the Federal Govt possibly be using machines that could be unsafe? They SAID it was safe in official documents.
I don't think it's a conspiracy, except possibly at the manufacturer's level. There were two competing technologies for this I think, and we know that there was big money involved including millions spent on lobbying. The lesson from the Space Shuttle Columbia was that, in this era, the MBAs at the top are inclined to believe much different things than the engineers. They will force an atmosphere where their belief is the overriding one, because it's money involved. If they want it to be called safe, even if a 1-in-100,000 failure could hurt someone, it will be called safe.
After reading the original UCSF concerns, which I linked in this thread, and this post by the molecular biologist, there are pretty serious questions. It's not just a political tilt that now, I say, I would not go through these machines. I recommend you don't either.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/23/headlines#5
Manufacturers of Full Body Scanners Increase Lobbying Effort
As the national debate over airport screening practices intensifies, little attention has paid to the increasing lobbying power the manufacturers of full body scanning machines have in Washington.
USA Today reports L3 Communications has spent $4.3 million on lobbying, up from $2.1 million in 2005. L3 has sold nearly $40 million worth of machines to the federal government. Lobbyists for L3 have included Linda Daschle, the wife of former U.S. Senate majority leader Tom Daschle. Meanwhile Rapiscan Systems has spent more than $270,000 on lobbying so far this year, compared with $80,000 five years earlier. The company made headlines last year when it hired former U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff who has become a prominent proponent of body scanners. The CEO of Rapiscan’s parent company, Deepak Chopra, recently traveled with President Obama on his three-day trip to India.
It's interesting to hear from somebody that knows the science behind this shit. The calculation of dosage on some parts of the body is startling. Sure, a drop of sulphuric acid in your bath water won't do much damage, but when dropped on the skin it's serious damage.
But no matter what the dangers, the [STRIKE]sheep[/STRIKE] public have voted this Thanksgiving weekend. I don't think is was worrying about the plane blowing up, as much as not wanting to be delayed. The same reason people take horrendous risks when they're driving, rather than getting where they're going 5 minutes later.
I probably mentioned this before, but decades ago in Israel I had to undergo a pat down to see a movie. While I had been subjected to a pat down before at a courthouse, this was the first time it had happened at a business.
Fortunately, the movie was "Three Days of the Condor", so the paranoia actually worked into the whole experience. It would have certainly put a damper on the event if it had been "The Little Mermaid".:right:
Meanwhile Rapiscan Systems
Seriously? I mean, I'm sure they're going for [rapid]-scan, but all I can hear in my head is [rapey]-scan.
Full body scanners - coming soon to a neighborhood near you.
How can any security manager NOT go down this road ?
AP
By P. SOLOMON BANDA, Associated Press – Tue Nov 23, 9:21 pm ET
Full-body scanners popping up at courthouses
CASTLE ROCK, Colo
The U.S. Marshals Service, which is in charge of protecting federal judges nationwide,
is exploring their use at federal courthouses.
And two state courthouses in Douglas and El Paso counties in Colorado have already deployed
full-body scanners that use radio waves to detect all objects on a person, including paper.
Oh yeah, they are wanting them at subway stations and bus terminals...
At least courthouses are frequented every day by actual know violent criminals. Not like airports where it's normal people just trying to get where they are going.
At least courthouses are frequented every day by actual know violent criminals.
Not like airports where it's normal [COLOR="Navy"]terrorists [/COLOR]just trying to get where they are going.
he he he
At least courthouses are frequented every day by actual know violent criminals. Not like airports where it's normal people just trying to get where they are going.
Yeah, but airports are voluntary, refusing to go to the courthouse can get you indefinite jail time for contempt of court.
The government should try staying out of the process. Let the public know that the each airline is responsible for the safety of its own flights, and consumers can choose how safe they want to be. Maybe have terrorism liability clauses that pay indirectly proportional to how involved security is. You can get a low cost, no security check walk-on flight with Jet Blew (up), or a higher cost flight with more security from Scan And Pat Air.
But when the terrorists take down a plane, the political capital is huge. The loss to the country is more important than the people killed. On a large plane maybe 500 people, hell, we knock off more jaywalkers and bike riders than that.
A great personal tragedy for each victim and their families, but small potatoes to the country. That's why 9-11 was of such importance. 3,000 people isn't a blip on the national death toll, it was the attack on the nation that was important.
I feel 9/11 was such a big issue for Americans because
it was another "first" for our
current generations,
just as JFK's assassination in the 60's was for those generations.
Each event came at times when our society was conditioned or
accustomed to being safe over several years.
The problem of safety is that you can never be completely safe.
It's a matter of how much risk you are willing to accept and at what cost.
That's what I was trying to discuss in my
earlier thread about giving bin Laden what he wanted
But when the terrorists take down a plane, the political capital is huge.
I agree that this is the way things are, but it makes no sense. What does it matter
where someone is killed by terrorists? Why are planes so freaking sacred?
Its not just the people on the plane that are the problem. Its when the plane gets used as a weapon - ie: its flown into a building and such. The collateral damage is much greater than just the passengers and one planeload of people. It affects more, much more than just the people flying.
Its not just the people on the plane that are the problem. Its when the plane gets used as a weapon - ie: its flown into a building and such.
With the hardened cockpit doors and alert passengers, that will never happen again. The most a terrorist can try for is to time a bomb right so that a plane will go down in a city. But planes mostly avoid flying over high density downtown areas. So you might end up with a neighborhood like
Rockaway getting a crash landing, and a handful of people on the ground dying. It's bad, but no where near as bad as WTC going down.
It had never happened before and hasn't happened since.
With the hardened cockpit doors and alert passengers, that will never happen again.
Lets hope so.
Unless they're the pilot. Then we'll be sorry we locked those doors!
No, because if it's the pilot you can't stop him from crashing anyway, even with an unlocked door. You might be able to keep him from hitting a particular building, but I doubt he'd announce it beforehand.
This guy has an artificial hip, so he sets off the metal detector every single time he flies... and so he gets the pat-down every single time he flies... which is quite often. So here he strips down to a speedo when going through the metal detector, so he can show once and for all what's going on.
They refuse to let him board, and make him go through security again with his pants on, so they can pat him down.
It's just the utter insanity that gets me on this one. It's come to this: there is a complete lack of logic or common sense involved here. That tells us that the system is ineffective by design. The lowest level employee is not empowered to make the simplest of decisions. As a result, enormous time is wasted on things that are obviously not security threats.
TSA workers are often compared to McDonalds workers. That's unfair. I've worked at McDonalds. Ordinary employees are allowed to make common sense decisions. A simple decision like Hey, cleaning fluid got on the burgers, so we have to throw the burgers out, is made by McDonald's employees all the time. A TSA employee would not be allowed to make that call. So it leads to this.
[YOUTUBE]Ef1sdIlun-4[/YOUTUBE]
More correctly, TSA employees should be compared to people who could not get hired as McDonald's employees.
There is a use for people who are incapable of thinking for themselves:
Suicide missions and cannon fodder.
More correctly, TSA employees should be compared to people who could not get hired as McDonald's employees.
There is a use for people who are incapable of thinking for themselves:
Suicide missions and cannon fodder.
It could be that they are
told not to think for themselves, and do what they're told.
Can you imagine how a TSA employee would be cricified if (s)he let someone through, and that someone blew up a plane?
It could be that they are told not to think for themselves, and do what they're told.
Can you imagine how a TSA employee would be cricified if (s)he let someone through, and that someone blew up a plane?
So I'm supposed to feel sorry for them? Fuck that.
So I'm supposed to feel sorry for them? Fuck that.
Can you accept that there could possibly be an alternate explanation?
Can you accept that there could possibly be an alternate explanation?
An alternate explanation for what? Listen, I'm a firefighter and as much as it sucks I've failed to save a life before. It was over a year ago and I still think about it and can see the woman's face very vividly. Bad shit happens to good people, you do your job as best you can within your limits and hope for the best. If it turns out bad, tough luck deal with it and anyone who blames you for something bad happening when you've followed all the procedures, well they can go to hell.
All the TSA people will quit their jobs then everyone will bitch that they don't want to work and want handouts.
Seriously, it's not the employees' fault. I bet they lose their job if they stray even slightly from the protocol. It seems rather harsh to judge the people who are just doing what they're told to do, saying they must be more stupid than fast food employees.
*knocks on people's heads* I'm not saying it's not a stupid stupid stupid policy, but the employees have no say in the matter, I'm sure.
"You do your job as best you can within your limits." What limits do you suppose the TSA puts on its employees? Do you think they would love to use common sense?
"You do your job as best you can within your limits." What limits do you suppose the TSA puts on its employees? Do you think they would love to use common sense?
I was speaking of limits in general. They only way TSA can be 100% effective in stopping threats is to not let anyone in. That isn't an option, so being an employee there you have to realize and accept that the measures will not stop everything. And when the day comes that someone does get through and the shit hits the fan, know that blame cannot be placed on you for following procedures. I'm sure many would love to use common sense, just as many also love power-tripping in their position. It is a mixed bag, they aren't all helpless pawns just doing their jobs, and they aren't all egotistical megalomaniacs.
That isn't an option, so being an employee there you have to realize and accept that the measures will not stop everything. And when the day comes that someone does get through and the shit hits the fan, know that blame cannot be placed on you for following procedures
And that's just what I'm saying. Those people probably were following procedures, and thinking "awwww fuck this sucks but I need this job." They're probably REALLY tired of the shit they get all day long, but they need the job. So they follow the stupid procedures that don't make sense even to them.
Otherwise, their ass in on the line. They don't get to pick and choose. It is, I'm sure, a very set protocol. I bet their procedures dont' allow for individual expression. I think this is where people are getting way off track.
In other words, everyone is raping the messenger. The messenger just doesn't want to be unemployed in this economy.
*shrug*
I'm sure their protocol is extremely rigid, just as it is here in the EMS world. Public safety has gotten that way over the years in all forms fire, EMS, police, TSA, etc. Deviate and you're screwed because that protocol is your Bible and you better have it memorized word for word. I get tired of seeing people in pain and family members suffering all the time, but it's my job that I chose and I wouldn't be here if I wasn't willing to deal with it.
I have a degree of sympathy for them in regards to just needing the job in this economy. They're in a sucky situation, I'm sure many of them were employed long before the enhanced pat downs and scanners were implemented. What should they do, quit over moral issues? Not in this economy.
It seems rather harsh to judge the people who are just doing what they're told to do, saying they must be more stupid than fast food employees.
"I was only following orders" isn't that the Nuremburg defense?
Maybe not more stupid, maybe more stupid. I was talking about the ability to think for yourself and within that concept is encompassed "despite what your superiors may have told you."
And I stand by my original assertion, we need people like that, people who follow orders without question. "Run into that cave and flush out the enemy? Fuck you, sarge." <---not that kind of attitude.
How many people sign up for this job now, do you think? Before it probably held a little prestige, now maybe not so much. I'd be hard pressed to go for it.
never name the well you won't drink from
Ha...good point, but the odds are really slim.
I sure wouldn't want to do that job. But I don't want the one I have. :rolleyes:
Thing is, they pay me...and it takes money to not be homeless. Unless you have rich relatives or something, I guess. I doubt that's the case for most of those people, or else many would rise up and say "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore."
So I'm supposed to feel sorry for them? Fuck that.
I have a degree of sympathy for them
Ok, I'm confused.
There is a use for people who are incapable of thinking for themselves:
Suicide missions and cannon fodder.
"I was only following orders" isn't that the Nuremburg defense?
Maybe not more stupid, maybe more stupid. I was talking about the ability to think for yourself and within that concept is encompassed "despite what your superiors may have told you."
And I stand by my original assertion, we need people like that, people who follow orders without question. "Run into that cave and flush out the enemy? Fuck you, sarge." <---not that kind of attitude.
I doubt that these people are "incapable of thinking for themselves". I'll bet that they want to keep their jobs, and keep flying safe. If they were to quit in righteous indignity, there'd be ten applicants for every abandoned position.
Those were two different issues. I don't feel sorry for them if something happens after they follow all their protocol. And neither should they. I do feel sorry for their economic position of just needing a job in this economy, and many probably don't like the new rules and procedures any more than the average passenger.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
That dude is totally playing with himself.
