Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

TSA To Make Pat-Downs More Embarrassing To Encourage Scanner Use

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the your-tax-dollars-at-work dept.

Transportation 642

Jeffrey Goldberg writes for the Atlantic about his recent experiences with opting out of the back-scatter full-body scanners now being used to screen airport travelers. Passengers can choose to submit to a pat-down instead of going through the scanners, but according to one of the TSA employees Goldberg talked to, the rules for those are soon changing to make things more uncomfortable for opt-outs, while not doing much for actual security. He writes, 'The pat-down, while more effective than previous pat-downs, will not stop dedicated and clever terrorists from smuggling on board small weapons or explosives. When I served as a military policeman in an Israeli army prison, many of the prisoners 'bangled' contraband up their a**es. I know this not because I checked, but because eventually they told me this when I asked. ... the effectiveness of pat-downs does not matter very much, because the obvious goal of the TSA is to make the pat-down embarrassing enough for the average passenger that the vast majority of people will choose high-tech humiliation over the low-tech ball check."

cancel ×

642 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

first pat (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34078668)

first pat

Wanna check my balls? (5, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078670)

Go ahead.

You might want to have a think about who's really being humiliated in this situation though. I don't think it's me.

Re:Wanna check my balls? (4, Funny)

garcia (6573) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078750)

I'm lactose intolerant. I'll be sure to drink a glass of milk with my garlic eggs in the morning and make the experience a real unpleasant one for them. "Oops, sorry, when you hit the 'resistance' it caused me to jump and I let some gas out."

Believe me, the TSA employees will revolt against upper management if enough people fart in their face all fucking day long. You want to play fucking games, we'll play them right back.

Re:Wanna check my balls? (5, Interesting)

amanicdroid (1822516) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078752)

"Oh yeah, that's good. Keep going, keep going, OH YES! You've done this before haven't you. *wink*"

That should accompany every search.

Re:Wanna check my balls? (3, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078868)

That doesn't work on people with IQs below 80 (ie. the people who'll be doing it to you)

Re:Wanna check my balls? (3, Insightful)

amanicdroid (1822516) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078922)

I've found it's quite the opposite. The lower IQ people are more adverse to "that gay shit". If you get a beatdown make a federal case out of it.

Re:Wanna check my balls? (4, Funny)

c (8461) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078984)

No doubt there's some secret law saying you're not allowed to enjoy your ball check.

Re:Wanna check my balls? (5, Funny)

amanicdroid (1822516) | more than 3 years ago | (#34079032)

Outlawing turning a bug into a feature?
That's un-Amurican.

Re:Wanna check my balls? (4, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078756)

Those who would give up essential liberty for a little ball rubbing action, deserve neither.

Re:Wanna check my balls? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34079042)

Wouldn't it be:
"Those who would give up essential liberty for a little genital comfort, deserve neither."?

Cough, please ... (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078760)

If I had that job, I would at least have to humor to say, "Cough, please!", when checking the balls.

Re:Cough, please ... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34078834)

Also in the news:

Nobody will ever use the scanner in San Francisco.

Re:Wanna check my balls? (1)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078770)

I'd like you to think that you said that to yourself in the Frank Langella "Nixon" voice.

Re:Wanna check my balls? (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078780)

Go ahead.

You might want to have a think about who's really being humiliated in this situation though. I don't think it's me.

I wonder would happen if I imagine having sex with Jenna Jameson right before my pat down - and maybe a little pocket pool before hand - how fast do you think the pat down will go then?

Re:Wanna check my balls? (1)

rrossman2 (844318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078806)

I beat they may change their mind about this if enough travels had the "balls" to opt-out of the backscatter, get the pat down, and pretend they really enjoyed it when the agent got to "the resistance"

Re:Wanna check my balls? (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078844)

I've only flown a few times, but the last time it was a really cute guard who did a pat-down on me. I actually enjoyed it :D

Re:Wanna check my balls? (1)

Fred IV (587429) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078850)

The passenger has plenty of opportunity to make it worse for the TSA goon since the pat down happens in front of all of the other passengers unless a request is made to go to a private area. I can't wait to see the first news stories start rolling in about situations where the TSA agent blows their cool and attacks a passenger after being publicly humiliated and laughed at by a line full of travelers.

"Over already? Do you always finish first when you do this sort of thing at home too?"

Re:Wanna check my balls? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34078872)

Are we allowed to request that a female TSA agent administer the pat-down? Better yet, that she use her tongue for the pat-down, as the tongue is far more sensitive to texture than the fingers?

Re:Wanna check my balls? (3, Funny)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078982)

My replacement hips always set off the alarm, but I tell them I have stainless steel balls.

doesn't make sense (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34078678)

How exactly does this make us anymore secure? If a terrorist could exploit a loophole in the pat down procedure, then he wouldn't care whether it was anymore embarrassing.

Re:doesn't make sense (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34078684)

You'd almost think it wasn't about terrorism.

It's about obedience (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078822)

You need to be trained to accept government intrusion into your personal space, do whatever they tell you to.

If you'll let them feel you up in public then letting them scan your email will seem like no big deal.

Re:It's about obedience (1)

amanicdroid (1822516) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078862)

Make the lackeys feel dumb and ridiculous. The price of operations will go up and they'll find different methods.

Re:doesn't make sense (3, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078704)

The fewer rights we have, the more secure we are! Eliminating privacy will surely protect us from those evil terrorists!

Re:doesn't make sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34078732)

How exactly does this make us anymore secure? If a terrorist could exploit a loophole in the pat down procedure, then he wouldn't care whether it was anymore embarrassing.

It doesn't make us more secure.. that would be beside the point, don't you think? Increasing scanner use by humiliating airport travelers cuts labor costs for the security services and it helps to make a stronger business case for the manufacturer of those scanners so many airport travelers don't seem to want to use. They guy in the summary is right, scanners won't really do anything that a pat-down doesn't do until they can pick out the guys who shoved enough Semtex and detonators into up fundaments to take out an airliner. In the mean time you can choose between being groped by a security officer or stepping into the scanner and having a couple of donut eating uniforms make fun of your love-handles and man-boobs or making lewd comments about you if you are a woman.

Re:doesn't make sense (2, Interesting)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078762)

With the introduction of these scanners I just refuse to fly unless it's out of a small private jet. It may take longer to get somewhere in this country, and may limit where I can go in many cases, but it's better than giving up fundamental liberties.

Re:doesn't make sense (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34078848)

So you gave up the fundamental liberty of freedom of movement? Does not seem like an improvement just a d

Re:doesn't make sense (2, Interesting)

ComputerGeek01 (1182793) | more than 3 years ago | (#34079018)

I wish I had mod points so that more people would consider this. With todays economy depending on where you are going the size of your group and how close to the travel date you want to leave it may be cheaper to rent a private plane over taking comercial aircraft. I'd think even in cases where it isn't literally cheaper the added freedom on time and elbow room along with the only way to assure that the plane didn't get over booked means that you are by far better off.

Re:doesn't make sense (1)

hrvatska (790627) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078902)

How exactly does this make us anymore secure? If a terrorist could exploit a loophole in the pat down procedure, then he wouldn't care whether it was anymore embarrassing.

Once you no longer have the right to move freely without the proper documents and every shred of your personal freedom is gone, then you'll truly be free. Remember, the next time we enter into another war, and anyone who asks too many questions is labeled unpatriotic, that WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. And then thank Big Brother that you have it so good.

Re:doesn't make sense (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078908)

How exactly does this make us anymore secure?

It makes people fear and respect the power of authorities, and that makes a lot of other people feel secure.

Pat down, or molest? (5, Interesting)

MoeDumb (1108389) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078680)

What will be the difference between a pat down and a molest? Inevitably it'll take a lawsuit to find out.

Re:Pat down, or molest? (2, Funny)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078706)

The pat down stops all those nasty terrorists, of course! It's also done by people you can definitely trust.

Re:Pat down, or molest? (5, Insightful)

Rod76 (705840) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078710)

All this is really going to do is make the already financially unstable airline industry even more likely to go into bankruptcy. The only time I fly now is if work forces it upon me. I'm tired of these TSA thugs, they are becoming more and more like prison guards these days and we the public are the new fish being introduced to their penal system. Where's the for the children tag when you need it. If the backscatter scanner doesn't violate them enough the TSA "child molester" pat down will definitely seal the deal. I wonder what future generations will say about our obsession with security in years to come? I don't think we'll come out smelling like roses.

Re:Pat down, or molest? (3, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078720)

"I wonder what future generations will say about our obsession with security in years to come?"

If people keep putting up with it, they'll probably be in the same situation we are.

Re:Pat down, or molest? (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078730)

actually i am just tired of airline prices. It used to be well worth my time to fly instead of spending 6-8 hours driving. now a days it costs almost twice of what it did back then.

I find it sad when one can fly to Florida, or Nevada, or Los Angeles from NY cheaper than it is to fly to Boston. Not only is it cheaper but it is faster too. As the majority of direct flights have to bounce through PA, or New Jersey.

Re:Pat down, or molest? (2, Informative)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 3 years ago | (#34079050)

actually i am just tired of airline prices

While you might be experiencing a moderate fare bump right now, historically fares have never been cheaper.

50 years ago or so it would have cost about $300 to fly transcon - Nearly $2400 in todays's dollars. Today you can fly from New York to LA for under $500.

Here's some more recent examples:

In 1990 I flew from Vancouver to London... It was my first big backpacking trip after university. I remember the fare was around $950 - Around $1540 in today's dollars. By comparison, that same trip on those same dates would cost $1465 today - Almost $100 less.

I remember around 1999 I used to fly Vancouver to Denver once a month on United. The flight, purchased three weeks ahead without a Saturday stay was around $1000. Indexed to today's dollars, that's nearly $1300.

Today the fare is about half that - Or less.

So are fares moderately higher than they might have been 2 or 3 years ago? Maybe, but in looking at the big picture fares have never been lower.

Re:Pat down, or molest? (4, Informative)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078978)

Or the fact that they essentially steal with impunity. My coworker packed a macbook pro in his checked bag but when he got back he found a note from the TSA and no laptop. The TSA claims that they have security cameras on their employees at all times so they couldn't have stolen it. However when he looked closely at his bag he saw a small but certainly noticeable cut on the upper right part of his bag.

We theorize that the TSA people look for bags with goodies, "inspect" them and if they find something worth stealing they make a small cut on the bag. Then they give the bag to someone else who then proceeds to take it to a place without cameras, grabs the goodies and then sends the bag through.

The TSA repeatedly claimed that since they "screen" their employees and that their employees don't steal. Bullshit.

Re:Pat down, or molest? (2, Interesting)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078784)

Which will almost certainly culminate in a ruling which essentially says "Airports are different to other parts of the world and the TSA can essentially invent their own law there, and if their law says they can gently fondle your bollocks with one hand while jacking off with the other, so be it".

Re:Pat down, or molest? (1)

Patch86 (1465427) | more than 3 years ago | (#34079036)

I got patted down at a UK airport once (I forget which, probably Bristol). It didn't seem anywhere near as intrusive as even the "old" method described on this page is. The chap just patted down my upper body and legs, it took maybe 20 seconds, and the security guard seemed fairly good humoured about it.

I'd prefer that to the radiation bath. Not sure about my preferences if full crotch-rubbing is involved.

Re:Pat down, or molest? (1)

phoomp (1098855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34079038)

They'll just say a little molestation is a price worth paying to ensure our "safety".

Maybe a solution? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34078686)

Maybe a solution to this panic-stricken theater would be to start requiring all passengers coming off a US flight to go through the same mess as those arriving in the US. Especially those who are government employees. And make sure they are told "this policy will remain in place until the US once again starts behaving like a civilized country".

Maybe with the addendum that "All travelers arriving from countries who have not signed the ICC treaty must be strip-searched and quarantined for 48 hours on arrival, before passport check is done." (this would include those arriving on diplomatic passports). Countries who do not accept international laws have no business sending people outside their own borders, period.

Re:Maybe a solution? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078828)

I'm not making plans to visit America anytime soon if that's how they're going to treat me.

Re:Maybe a solution? (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078884)

Countries who do not accept international laws have no business sending people outside their own borders, period.

As if every single country accepts every single "international law", except for the US.

Re:Maybe a solution? (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078930)

Especially those who are government employees.

FTFA:

In part because of the back-scatter imager's invasiveness (a TSA employee in Miami was arrested recently after he physically assaulted a colleague who had mocked his modestly sized penis, which was fully apparent in a captured back-scatter image)....

I know a TSA officer and she says they have to go through the same shit we do.

What we need is for Congress to go through this - none of this horseshit of them flashing their IDs to walk on through. Then, you'd see changes until the next attack and then they'd suck it up to keep their jobs - I know quite a few people (mostly old) who feel safer with all this extra security.

Senators will always get around it because they're either multimillionaires themselves with their own jets or they get to borrow private jets from big corporations that are getting "favors" from them.

Re:Maybe a solution? (5, Insightful)

forand (530402) | more than 3 years ago | (#34079048)

Apparently you didn't fly through Brazil shortly after the US started requiring those entering to give finger prints. Once the Brazilian boarder patrol people found out one was an American they would take them aside and get their finger prints. This consisted of using the old school stain your hand for a week ink for ALL fingers. They would then hold up the card, look at it intently and say something about the US requiring THEIR citizen to do this, then tear up the paper and throw it away. In the end though we still require finger prints to enter the US.

So now there's a choice... (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078692)

... between indecent assault, and being irradiated with dangerous levels of microwave and X-rays?

Oh well, it's not like I can't drive anywhere I'd otherwise fly to.

Re:So now there's a choice... (2, Insightful)

JustOK (667959) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078916)

have fun in Hawaii

I may be drunk.... (1)

TornCityVenz (1123185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078696)

but let me be the first to say.... LOL

In other news (5, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078852)

How's the crackdown on TSA employees who steal from baggage [google.com] coming along? Oh, there isn't one.

Fine ... I'll still take the pat-down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34078708)

If they find it inconvenient, good. Every time I take the "3 minute pat-down" versus the <30-second backscatter scan, it will be my small, quiet protest against the whole fiasco.

Recent experience at IND (2, Informative)

walmass (67905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078738)

TSA: Sir, please empty your pockets, even scraps of paper, then step into this booth and place your feet on the yellow footprints. Me: I'd like to request a patdown, please TSA: Certainly sir, please wait here. Approx 3 min wait, then someone walked over, and spent another minute explaining how he will touch my butt and pelvic area with only the back of his hand, then he proceeded to do that The actual pat-down took another 3 minutes and was quite thorough It felt a bit intrusive, but not having experienced one before I don't know if I got the new, enchanced version or not. Like parent above, this was my silent protest: let them waste time on this. I will continue to opt for the pat-down.

Re:Recent experience at IND (3, Informative)

JustOK (667959) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078926)

back of the hand is the old

Re:Recent experience at IND (1, Insightful)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078950)

It doesn't waste their time, it only wastes yours. They are there for the duration of their shift whether people choose scanning or not. Likely, having to do a pat-down is a break from the otherwise mind numbing task of having to explain to passengers how to walk through the metal detector.

Re:Fine ... I'll still take the pat-down (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078746)

Quiet? Hell you really want to make it fun, take some viagra before going in, and moan a little when they start the pat-down.

If you have to feel uncomfortable, they should as well :)

XKCD, where would we be without your ideas.

Re:Fine ... I'll still take the pat-down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34078882)

You have my attitude completely backwards. I don't want to torment the screeners -- after all, the screeners are only trying to do their difficult, thankless jobs. My message is directed at the people at the top who might take notice if an increasing number of people refuse to sheepishly accept their shiny new "security illusion" machines.

I didn't find the pat-down uncomfortable. I was too angry at the people making these decisions to think about embarrassment (again, not anger at the screeners, who were professional about it). And if I'm intentionally *supposed* to feel uncomfortable, well, that will just make me angrier at the people at the top, and therefore it will be easier to put up with going through the option "they" don't want me to choose. I'm stubborn that way. And I'll have to make a point of apologizing to the screeners for putting them through it.

Re:Fine ... I'll still take the pat-down (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078986)

Kinda remands me of a tactic the Aussie unemployment benefits department (Centrelink) used a while back, they didn't want people to come in to the office so they would keep changing the appointment times to encourage people to use the call centre to solve their problem.

Or even our local water authority, who after many complaints about chlorine levels in the water being too high (it was because their dissolving drum units kept getting it caked up inside them), rather than fix the chemical system, they increased the size of their call centre to handle the complaints.

Hrmm, seems its a common thing that government agencies just don't care about people, they only care about numbers.

Re:Fine ... I'll still take the pat-down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34078972)

best xkcd reference ever!

I would opt-out, reluctantly (1)

sosaited (1925622) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078716)

I would opt for the pat-down provided the person checking me is not gay. Considering how seriously homo-phobic (most) men are, he hopefully won't be too thorough.

Re:I would opt-out, reluctantly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34078744)

Who cares if they're gay or not? Just close your eyes and pretend they're a woman -- at least you'll get something out of it.

Re:I would opt-out, reluctantly (2, Funny)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078768)

I would opt for the pat-down provided the person checking me is not gay. Considering how seriously homo-phobic (most) men are, he hopefully won't be too thorough.

After the pat down, I plan on asking - rather loudly - for a cigarette and if it's appropriate to tip for more "stringent" searches.

Re:I would opt-out, reluctantly (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078956)

I've beem patted down twice, both times by law enforcement. The one cop seemed to enjoy it, and it wasn't fun for me at all. What's worse, I hadn't done anything wrong either time.

You don't even have to be arrested, let alone be tried, let alone be found guilty, to be punished in the US (and probably everywhere).

If i was a terrorist... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34078718)

I'd STILL be cheering after all these years...

Look what we're doing to ourselves... We've done more damage to our country than the terrorists ever could have hoped to do directly...

We proved it.. Terrorisim works! And works fuckin awesome too! Not directly.. But the whole country losing its fucking mind, wasting BILLIONS, is sure a huge victory for the terrorists.

Way to go my fellow sheeple americans. Fuckin ijits.

Re:If i was a terrorist... (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078736)

You sound like a terrorist! I've seen right through your pathetic disguise. In reality, this will help us catch all of your dirty terrorist friends while allowing us to be nearly 100% secure! Now all that's left to do is install cameras inside everyones houses and we're good to go.

Wrong target! (5, Insightful)

lewildbeast (715894) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078722)

Whilst making the pat down more embarrassing may encourage scanner use for the average bloke, average blokes don't blow up planes! So basically this seems like just another ploy to irritate the general public to foster a false sense of security.

Re:Wrong target! (1)

cmdr_tofu (826352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078808)

But it might encourage folks who haven't had a good pat-down in a while to fly instead of taking the train ;-)

Re:Wrong target! (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078836)

Did they bother to fix the fact that the scanner sends images to the home office? Interesting they have to intimidate people into using them anyway. All this BS is a deterrence to air travel. Even with terrorists, flying is a lot safer than driving, but if you make it too inconvenient, then people that have a choice might choose something else.

Plan behind a plan (1)

SlovakWakko (1025878) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078938)

I think that the real long-term plan here is to minimize pat-down use to such a level, that later it can be abandoned altogether without much resistance from the flying public. When they (you know, THEY) have been able to make us consider pat-downs as the less-humiliating option, I think they are safe to assume they'll eventually be able to force us to do anything...

Re:Wrong target! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34079044)

Wait a minute, that argument is only supposed to be applied later. You know, when the few that still hold out get anal probes just after being told "if you have nothing to hide you would have opted for the scanner.

Really? (1)

amanicdroid (1822516) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078734)

So I get a little free hand action with every flight? AWESOME!

Can I tip extra to get a stewardess?

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34078990)

Air hostess! Get it right!

Today is "opposites day"!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34078748)

Gee, I must be the only one who thinks this is a plus not a minus. Free handjob with every ticket. What's wrong with that?

But seriously, this kind of nonsense is precisely why, for my last vacation, we drove. And we had a great time. And the vacation before that, it was Amtrak. Had a great time too.

I don't miss air travel.

I continue to find it appalling... (4, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078754)

...that you people continue to put up with this crap.

Re:I continue to find it appalling... (3, Funny)

digitig (1056110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078772)

Yes, "I heard it from some unverified source who might know" stories really are sloppy journalism. It is appalling that people put up with them.

Re:I continue to find it appalling... (1)

thomst (1640045) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078818)

...that you people continue to put up with this crap.

Whereas WE continue to find it appalling that we seem to have no choice but to put up with this crap, regardless of which party is in power.

And the same goes for the war on pot, warrantless wiretapping, indefensible patent and copyright law, etc., etc., et-fucking-c...

Re:I continue to find it appalling... (2, Insightful)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078840)

And again the rest of the world finds it appalling you only have two parties to choose from.

t ouchy-feely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34078778)

You wanna touch me? That's fine, I'm a pretty attractive guy, don't you think? It's been a while since I've gotten THIS level of attention from a pair of hands. Yeah, TSA, good job.

This is reasonable (3, Funny)

digitalsushi (137809) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078788)

But I expect a refund if the plane blows up. Is that fair?

Homo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34078790)

Just tell them you are gay, before the pat down. That will make them uncomfortable.

Article is Troll **AND** Flamebait all in one! (-1, Troll)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078796)

Come on, what real proof is there the rule change is to be more "embarrassing"? It's utterly stupid on the face of it if you think AT ALL about airport security as it is, and will be in the near future:

1) There are not enough scanners to process traffic flow at any airport.

2) (the big one) only a handful of people get pat downs - the ones who fail the metal detector. Which you don't realize until AFTER you have gone through it, so how is a slightly more embarrassing pat-down which no-one even knows about going to make you want to choose a scanner? Since people assume they are not going to trigger the metal detector why would behavior change in the slightest?

Honestly, more and more SLashdot stores are devolving into utter paranoia. And not even the productive kind.

Re:Article is Troll **AND** Flamebait all in one! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34078820)

Wow, let me know when "only people who trigger the metal detector get patdowns" day is. Last time I suffered through the drooling incompetence that is the TSA they were doing hand searches of every bag... whether attached to a person or not.

Re:Article is Troll **AND** Flamebait all in one! (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078864)

Last time I suffered through the drooling incompetence that is the TSA they were doing hand searches of every bag.

Which is not a patdown.

AND Mr AC, I've seen random screening of bags and some passengers before but never hand searches of ALL carryons from EVERY passenger. There is not time to to that for any plane that is even moderately full.

AND if that random searching is done, it's done at the gate which it way, way after the scanner choice so it STILL doesn't support the conclusion the article makes.

ALWAYS REFUSE THE SCANNER (5, Interesting)

OKLetsTalk (1932158) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078804)

Then ask for a private area. This will require at least three TSA employees to occupy there time exclusively for you. I fly several times a month and always do this. I guess it is just my little method of rebellion. I did notice the pat down I received two days ago was much more invasive.

Re:ALWAYS REFUSE THE SCANNER (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078936)

I had to get a pat down a couple of years ago and the officer did hit my balls with the back of his hand. Maybe it was an accident.

TSA the problem, not the solution (4, Insightful)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078858)

Anyone else starting to see the TSA as a bigger problem than actual terrorists?

Not sure about the solution but what we have is dysfunctional. We know we can't count on the airlines to run airport security. But TSA is starting to treat the flying public like some inconvenience while doing little to thwart actual terrorists.

didn't xkcd cover this (1, Informative)

DMoylan (65079) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078880)

seems like

http://xkcd.com/779/

would make it as embarrassing to security doing pat downs as viewing the scanner results

I guarantee my facial expressions and sounds (1)

VShael (62735) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078888)

will make it FAR more embarrassing for the dude or dudette who has to examine my sweaty junk.

The biggest complaints about this new policy will soon be coming from the staff.

Re:I guarantee my facial expressions and sounds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34079008)

if its a female doing it for the guys, then there will be a looooooooooong line for the patdown..

Re:I guarantee my facial expressions and sounds (1)

amanicdroid (1822516) | more than 3 years ago | (#34079060)

Make sure to request gentle ball cupping rather than the less personal and insulting open hand.

It is time to find another solution (2, Funny)

assertation (1255714) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078896)

Whether it is sanctioned sexual molestation ( pat downs ) or getting nuked with scanner radiation Americans didn't cause this problem and we do deserve to be treated this way. It is time to find another solution.

A start might be to make the scanning more palatable by hiring higher caliber people for security and giving them training in how to act and be more mature about the process. Their behavior and comments started many of the objections with scanning.

Re:It is time to find another solution (1)

rainer_d (115765) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078992)

Currently, the only other solution seems to be to not to fly at all.
Which, given recent events, "terrorist" are apparently the first to implement.

Think of the children! (4, Insightful)

amw5g (917529) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078918)

No seriously. I haven't come across any details regarding the backscatter or the pat downs that discusses differential treatment for young travelers. Don't have kids, but I would imagine a parent's dilemma when traveling in the coming days will be: a) quasi-nude imagery of my children; or b) stranger danger.

Not a problem. (2, Funny)

Jarnin (925269) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078958)

This has never been a problem for me. I only wear a speedo and flip-flops when I travel by air.

Three Magic Words: "Hostile Work Environment" (5, Interesting)

Dredd13 (14750) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078966)

Does your job require you to travel cross-country?

If so, your employer, as part of your work function is forcing you to subject yourself to either [a] "being seen naked by a stranger", or [b] "being groped by a stranger".

Either way, it seems like a perfect test-case for a sexual-harassment lawsuit. There are alternate forms of transportation that don't require being forced to make the decision above (if speed is important, you spend more money and charter a jet, if thrift is important, you spend more time and take a train). So if your employer requires that you fly commercial, it seems that you have an excellent cause of action under existing Sexual Harassment law.

Bonus points if you actually work for the gov't so you can avoid suing someone who didn't have a lot of say in the rules in the first place.

Either do it right or not at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34078980)

Cavity searches for everyone!

Or

Let everyone get on aircraft without any searches, pay cash for our tickets and not provide our names for travel.

What we're doing today is just crazy. This is a numbers game - there are more normal people than terrorists out there. After they blow up 100 aircraft, it will stop.

Not gonna work at all... (0, Offtopic)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | more than 3 years ago | (#34078998)

For most nerds, this pat down would be the closest thing to 2nd base they'll ever get...

I'll spend my holiday money elsewhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34079012)

Hit em where it hurts.... in the pocket

Recent events (1, Troll)

Gonoff (88518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34079014)

Was anyone else completely unsurprised at the cargo place alerts just now?

One day we have a senior airline exec saying that this is ridiculous and the next daythings are 'found' that reminds us how much we need all this security.

Coincidnce? I don't think so!/p>

Re:Recent events (2, Informative)

Dredd13 (14750) | more than 3 years ago | (#34079024)

Are you implying the US Gov't would run false flag [wikipedia.org] operations? That would never happen, sir, and I challenge you to retract your implication or back it up with facts. :)

(sarcasm, for the impaired)

you can have a bit of fun here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34079052)

work up a nice stiffy and request a female screener.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>