×

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!

National Opt-Out Day Against Virtual Strip Searches

kdawson posted more than 3 years ago | from the hobson's-choice dept.

Government 647

An anonymous reader writes in about a protest called for the busiest airline travel day of the year. "An activist opposed to the new invasive body scanners in use at airports around the country just designated Wednesday, Nov. 24 as a National Opt-Out Day. He's encouraging airline passengers to decline the TSA's technological strip searches en masse on that day as a protest against the scanners, as well as the new 'enhanced pat-downs' inflicted on refuseniks. 'The goal of National Opt-Out Day is to send a message to our lawmakers that we demand change,' reads the call to action at OptOutDay.com, set up by Brian Sodegren. 'No naked body scanners, no government-approved groping. We have a right to privacy, and buying a plane ticket should not mean that we're guilty until proven innocent.' The US Airline Pilots Association and other pilot groups have urged their members to avoid the scanners and have also condemned the new pat-down policy as humiliating to pilots. They've advised pilots who don't feel comfortable undergoing pat-downs in front of passengers to request they be conducted in a private room. Any pilots who don't feel comfortable after undergoing a pat-down have been encouraged to 'call in sick and remove themselves from the trip.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

647 comments

The privacy/security scale tips again. (0, Flamebait)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221568)

I wonder how well this would've gone over in October 2001. We haven't had a genuine terror attack in a long time, so people start getting indignant about security again. Do we really need to have another international calamity for us to start respecting laws that were put in place to keep us safe?

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221570)

Please provide a list of all terrorists caught by TSA to date. Thanks.

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (5, Interesting)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221584)

As soon as you provide a list of terrorists discouraged from boarding planes in the first place because of elevated security policies.

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (4, Insightful)

gantzm (212617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221646)

I'm willing to bet that list is smaller than the list of terrorists who didn't get on a plain for fear of having their ass kicked by Joe Public when they attempt something.

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (5, Insightful)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221936)

I'm willing to bet there are no terrorists whatsoever, this is all just mass hysteria, induced by opportunistic politics, grabbing of attention and votes, selling tons of security equipment, services, jobs, contracts, news, etc. And much of the world is just laughing or terrified of the dangers of the spiraling growth of such mass insanity, based on mass fear, encouraging state violence, the erosion of rights, and reactionary, aggressive politcs on all levels and numerous countries. I left the US, and although I miss many things, the news often reminds me I am relieved to be far from this utter madness.

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (4, Insightful)

selven (1556643) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221700)

Discouraged from boarding planes and encouraged to bomb subways. Bombing subways can in fact be even more harmful since it can disable an entire subway line until the damage to the subway can be fixed and the train removed. And with the high volume of traffic that subways get, any kind of security (beyond fare control) is impractical. Given this, protecting planes seems like reinforcing the door with steel while the windows are open.

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (0, Troll)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221890)

Then we should work on protecting subways too, though I admit this will be an uphill battle.

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221834)

If they're terrorists they should be arrested, not "refused permission to fly".

It shows the system is bullshit. Strip-searching or groping all passengers offends millions for very little if any gain. If the terrorists were discouraged from boarding planes with bombs, they haven't stopped being terrorists and they will find some other way to cause terror.

The problem is the existence of the terrorists. The police, FBI need to be looking for and catching them before they blow up shit. Strip searching everybody at the point of entry to a plane will only cause the terrorist to move their attack to something else. Traditional police and FBI work is geared toward finding the terrorist no matter what their plot is, while the TSA's "enhanced" pat-downs and full body viewing of passengers works only against a single plot, and the terrorists know it. The passengers know that terrorists may want to destroy the plane, so the passengers will fight back. The terrorists know this too.

As Bruce Schneier said, the only useful airline security innovation since 9/11 was the reinforcement of cockpit doors.

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221674)

Please provide a list of all terrorists caught by TSA to date. Thanks.

There have been several people who boarded planes with live bombs who were NOT caught. To most people, this would seem to mean the TSA needs to be MORE thorough, not less.

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221872)

You're correct. That it what it would meant to _most_ people.

To _rational_ people, it means the TSA approach is not working, We should try something else, like psychological screening. Israel uses it with relatively great results. I have no problem answering a few questions about where I was and where I'm going

http://www.japantoday.com/category/commentary/view/psychology-not-just-technology-needed-for-airport-security

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (1)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221924)

See, THIS is the kind of thing I like to see...rational solutions. I have no desire to see anyone groped, but unless viable alternatives are in place it's the best we have.

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (3, Insightful)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221712)

Although I am against the full-body scanner and more "intimate" pat-downs, your argument does nothing to strengthen our case. Suppose that on Sep. 8th, 2001 a new directive would have gone out telling all the pilots to lock the cockpit door at all times (during the flight, obviously). Would any terrorist be caught by such a measure? Would we see any benefit from it directly? Would people raise hell over it?* OTOH, in retrospect, we know that such a directive would have prevented a major terrorist attack that still affects our life today.
Who is more of a hero, the person who catches a terrorist in the middle of an attack (AKA Rambo) or the unknown official that wrote directives that prevented the terrorist attack in the first place? Or to put it differently: Smart is someone who gets out of trouble; Wise is someone who does not get into trouble in the first place.
I know, if we give up freedom for temporary security, etc. etc... And I agree with that sentiment, I just don't agree that "list of terrorists caught by TSA to date" is a useful endpoint.

* - BTW, the answers to these questions are no, no and yes, respectively.

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221754)

Hello. I have no fear of terrorists whatsoever. The country I live in have never been a target of terrorists.
We also do not make war on other contries, that might have something to do with it.

In about 10-20 years there will be people in Iraq and Afghanistan who saw their friends/parents/family killed by foreign soldiers. Many of them will want revenge, some of them will be willing to die for it.

I think the best way to protect oneself against terrorists is not to create them in the first place.

Hope this helps.

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (1)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221782)

I believe what truly created the environment of American resentment in Iraq and Afghanistan was our abandonment of both countries after the Iran/Iraq wars and the Afghanistan/Russia sovereignty conflict in the 80s. This created poverty and despair, which in turn lead to extremism.

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221866)

I believe what truly created the environment of American resentment in Iraq and Afghanistan was our abandonment of both countries after the Iran/Iraq wars and the Afghanistan/Russia sovereignty conflict in the 80s. This created poverty and despair, which in turn lead to extremism.

I always assumed it was the way we like to use our secret agencies to overthrow democratically elected leaders and replace them with dictators favorable to our interests, something the USA has a *long* history of repeatedly doing especially in the Middle East but also in South America and elsewhere. But no, they hate us for our freedoms, yeah, cuz we feel noble and innocent when we say that.

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221930)

no, because _that's what they tell us_, moron!

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221814)

Hello. You are naive (at best).

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221822)

Every western country who fights for equal rights, open debate about religion, freedom of speech - is a target, just because your country hasn't been on the receiving end doesn't mean your being a good boy or girl by keeping your head down, its because you aren't the biggest target on the to do list.

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (5, Insightful)

kobotronic (240246) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221576)

Keeping what safe? A gaggle of meekly surrendering sheep, or a nation of free people?

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (1)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221622)

We have policy discussions to find a balance between the two. Which protects us better and is more fair: electronically 'strip-searching' everybody or doing random checks? I would rather have everyone scanned and be able to have likely culprits scanned as well than pull aside the would-be offenders and have them scream civil liberties bloody murder.

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221718)

People are already screaming civil liberties bloody murder. Except this way there will be naked pictures of everyone involved. Yay!

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (2, Insightful)

Opie812 (582663) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221916)

Here's one: replace "random" searches with "searches of people most likely to be terrorists".

Heaven forbid!

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221744)

Keeping what safe? A gaggle of meekly surrendering sheep, or a nation of free people?

It's flock you insensitive clod.

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221764)

Keeping what safe? A gaggle of meekly surrendering sheep, or a nation of free people?

I'd feel a lot safer if every passenger was given a sap or a combat knife and instructed to deal with any terrorist by everyone rushing them at once. Of course that doesn't follow the pattern of passively waiting for government to rescue you which is why no media outlet or authority figure is ever going to promote it. So punches and kicks it is then.

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221580)

One will probably be manufactured...

There's so much money in fear.

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (0, Flamebait)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221596)

Not quite as much money as in liberal cynicism.

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (4, Insightful)

Gouyoku (1624711) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221652)

Who is making money on not installing body scanners at the airports ?
Who is making money on not installing cameras everywhere ?
Who is making money on not waging wars ?

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221592)

I wonder how well this would've gone over in October 2001. We haven't had a genuine terror attack in a long time, so people start getting indignant about security again. Do we really need to have another international calamity for us to start respecting laws that were put in place to keep us safe?

Shut up citiz... slave and get in the line! We are only protecting you from yourself!

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221648)

Nah, call them citizens, heck even give them a vote. It'll give them the illusion of choice and keep them happy for a bit. It's not like it changes anything

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221628)

I don't think its the lack of a terrorist attack as much as the utter uselessness of this technology relative to the risk of attack. I think people are tired of being treated like criminals just because they want to take their family on vacation. I think people of tired of having their children treated like criminals and then having to explain to them why it's okay for the government to touch them inappropriately. Furthermore, if we were serious about security we wouldn't be so lax about it everywhere else. In October 2001 you couldn't cross a bridge or tunnel into NYC by truck without having the contents of the truck searched by police. I can't remember the last time I saw one truck stopped traversing a river crossing. I guess the threat of dirty bombs just magically went away, right? Terrorists only care about airplanes I suppose. I ride the commuter rail and subway every day. Do you know how many times I've seen even one cop on a rail platform in the 4 years I've been commuting? ZERO. There are times in Penn Station that the subway platform is lined with cops. Do you know what they do? They poke their head into the subway car, look both ways, and then back away and it proceeds to the next stop. That's security? This country is a fucking joke when it comes to security yet for some reason the airport is treated like the holy grail. If we don't give up our rights and dignity a great calamity will befall us. Give me a fucking break. I'll take my chances getting on a plane with just a metal detector. If it's my time to go, then it's my time to go.

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221836)

People tire of invasive security methods? I never even stood for it to begin with. I've never travelled where it's enforced to such a degree as described here. I wanted to go to the US at one point in my life, keep it up and I'll never go.

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (0, Offtopic)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221690)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that slashdot moderators lean very heavily to the left. The way they mod down my comments simply because they don't agree with them borders on censorship. I'm not provoking anyone, I'm not saying things that devalue conversation, I'm simply expressing my opinion. Expressing ideas that you don't agree with do not amount to flaming and trolling.

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (0, Troll)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221756)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that slashdot moderators lean very heavily to the left. The way they mod down my comments simply because they don't agree with them borders on censorship. I'm not provoking anyone, I'm not saying things that devalue conversation, I'm simply expressing my opinion. Expressing ideas that you don't agree with do not amount to flaming and trolling.

Not wanting to be groped or virtually stripped search (or have the same happen to your children) is not a left-right issue. I imagine you are being modded down because you are either (1) a shill (in fact, paid shills often post stuff like your posts to internet discussion sites) or (2) a useful idiot.

Please, take your fear-mongering elsewhere and leave the intelligent discussions to the adults.

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (1, Informative)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221878)

An 'adult' would recognize the value of safety policies when it cost almost 3000 Americans their lives. And don't kid yourself; this IS a left-right issue, if only for question of timing. Bush put in place these policies and the left has been using them to their political advantage ever since. If Obama or Clinton were in office in 2001 they would have done the same thing and the right would have had a field day with it too. We can call each other names all day long but when it comes down to the hard reality of saving lives we rely on policymakers to make the best decisions. And they have performed admirably.

You are on a limb (4, Insightful)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221776)

I moderate quite a lot, perhaps because I try to be fair and presumably get good meta-moderation. I've reviewed your posting history, out of curiosity, and the moderation looks quite normal to me.

I'd just like to point out that the last post of yours that got down-moderated was a "The State knows best" - type post, which is probably more associated with the Far Left than the Right. My own feeling is that Slashdot moderators tend towards individual responsibility and freedom from excessive regulation, rather than any right/left dichotomy. And really, what do you expect of people most of whom have built their careers on the Internet? That's exactly the attitude you would expect.

Re:You are on a limb (1)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221826)

Most of my comments that are absent of political bent do get moderated fairly. And my comment about "liberal cynicism" deserved it; it was a gut reaction to someone's blatant provocation. But simply arguing that Bush-era policies truly have kept us safe should not be a criterion for flamebait or trolling. And I am opposed to the nanny state except in extreme cases where negligence lost us the lives of 2973 Americans.

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221692)

Hi, I'm an Aviation Security Professional. It's my job to make morons like you safe, this shit does not fix the vulnerabilities the international aviation transportation system has and wastes my time and yours when idiot bureaucrats enforce this reactive bullshit on us.

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (1, Insightful)

grumling (94709) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221958)

Well, there's the attitude that leads to us "morons" having to get felt up and strip searched just to go home for Thanksgiving.

Fuck you. I may not like dealing with my customers, but I at least realize they indirectly pay my salary and have some fucking respect, even for the less knowledgeable of them.

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221724)

People, just because you do not agree with a post, does not mean it is Flamebait. On the contrary, while I do not completely agree with the parent's post, he does have a point: The new regulations would have been approved much easily on October 2001.
Remember, while we love to hate the TSA, they have a terrible job: If something happens, then they did not do enough and someone gets the boot; If nothing happens, then they harass the passengers needlessly. It's a lose-lose situation.

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (1)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221762)

Thank you, I appreciate it. You're right, no one wants to be harassed needlessly, but the bombs sent in packages on election day make it abundantly clear that al Qaeda is still looking for vulnerabilities in our system. It would be a huge mistake for us to become lax in our enforcement.

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (1)

martas (1439879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221746)

that is the stupidest argument i have or will ever hear in my entire life. scared people do irrational things. they let incorrect things be done. greedy people take advantage of this. 'laws' that were created by these greedy people shouldn't be respected, they should be torn out of the books and shat on, then burned, then force-fed to the people who passed them in the first place. oh, and to you.

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (1)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221792)

Vitriol isn't going to keep our country safe from attack. the only things that can are sound policy decisions free from the debasement of emotion...

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221794)

The issue isn't whether security is needed. The issue is what security is proportionate and effective.

Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. (0, Flamebait)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221860)

Some guy putting his hands on my dick is not making us safer.

You mite enjoy that kind of violation by some random can't get a job at the home depot guy. The rest of use what to choose who does the dick touching.

A non-partisan no-brainer (5, Insightful)

jhigh (657789) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221582)

I have friends on both sides of the political spectrum, far to the left and far to the right. Everyone can (and should) agree that this is a gross violation of privacy and should not be tolerated. The only people that I have heard even come close to defending this procedure are the faux conservatives that put "security" (read: invading the privacy of citizens to expand the power of the state) over liberty.

Re:A non-partisan no-brainer (0, Flamebait)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221642)

Everyone can (and should) agree that this is a gross violation of privacy and should not be tolerated.

It's only a "gross violation" if you are forced to do it. There is an opt-out.

Maybe I'm just shamelessly immodest, but I support these scanners if they can be shown to speed up the process of checking in. People need to get over being seen naked - do they avoid the doctor's office as well?

"Virtually groped?" That's insane. Have a separate line for the insane people. That covers the "expanding the power of the state" crew, too.

We live in a world where airplanes attract way more than their fair share of terrorism - we need to accept that fact. We can't pretend that people won't try to bomb airplanes, even if there are much easier ways to kill people. Terrorists don't go after low-hanging fruit... they go after the spectacular. Otherwise they'd be bombing suburban bus and train routes, malls, and other places which are almost impossible to police. A plane is an exceptionally hard target in comparison, and yet they persist.

Re:A non-partisan no-brainer (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221694)

>People need to get over being seen naked

Why don't you get over yourself first, you stupid faggot.

Re:A non-partisan no-brainer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221770)

Why all of the frustration?

You need to get laid.

AH! That's it! You're muslim. I get it. Don't worry, as soon as you can take down a plane you'll get your fair share of virgins.

Re:A non-partisan no-brainer (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221728)

Maybe I'm just shamelessly immodest, but I support these scanners if they can be shown to speed up the process of checking in. People need to get over being seen naked - do they avoid the doctor's office as well?

You are shamelessly immodest. For a lot of people, being naked is an emotional thing, and while they can suck it up when it needs to happen with a doctor, they should not be forced to disrobe for some random TSA employee who really has no job qualifications at all.

We live in a world where airplanes attract way more than their fair share of terrorism - we need to accept that fact

Really? When last I checked, terrorists were also attacking federal buildings, abortion clinics, and meat packing plants, right here in the United States. Worldwide, terrorists seem to be attacking markets, schools, government buildings, and so forth. Airplanes are a bit rare in terms of terrorist attacks, probably because of the large amount of security and the difficulty in pulling off a successful attack.

We can't pretend that people won't try to bomb airplanes, even if there are much easier ways to kill people

You know what would be a really easy target? That giant line right near the security checkpoint at the airport. A terrorist looking to kill a lot of people would probably choose that target over an airplane, we practically handed it over to them. Attacking security checkpoints is not exactly unheard of; it happens in the middle east fairly regularly.

Terrorists don't go after low-hanging fruit... they go after the spectacular.

Completely false, take a look at the reports of attacks in Israel, Pakistan, India, Iraq, Afghanistan, and any of the other of dozens of countries that have problems with terrorists. Take a look at the terrorist activities here in the United States some time, and see how much low hanging fruit is attacked.

Re:A non-partisan no-brainer (5, Informative)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221832)

It's only a "gross violation" if you are forced to do it. There is an opt-out.

Yeah, and in some cases opting out means being ejected from the airport without being allowed to board your flight, and even threats of $10,000 civilian fines. Here are just a few recent reported incidents:

TSA encounter at SAN [blogspot.com]

Woman Says She Was Cuffed And Booted From Airport For Questioning Body Scanners [consumerist.com]

Pregnant Traveler: TSA Screeners Bullied Me Into Full-Body Scan [consumerist.com]

Even pilots are being ejected from airports for refusing to submit to the scanners:

Pilot who refused body scan at Memphis International blasts TSA security [commercialappeal.com]

Sorry, but if even a pilot can't opt out of going through the scanners then either something is severely broken in the system or the whole opt-out argument is complete bunk.

Re:A non-partisan no-brainer (4, Insightful)

mother_reincarnated (1099781) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221848)

It's only a "gross violation" if you are forced to do it. There is an opt-out.

Your opt-out is to have someone actually touch you in a way that anywhere else (save while under arrest) would result in punching or macing the attacker. This isn't because you failed a non-invasive screening procedure, it's because you don't want to take your clothes off.

Maybe I'm just shamelessly immodest, but I support these scanners if they can be shown to speed up the process of checking in.

It is literally an order of magnitude slower than standard screening. You have to stand still with your arms raised for at least 15 second after they start the scan. Then you need to stand and wait for the "all clear" over the radio. Or you need to wait for someone to take like a minute to make a rucus about you opting out and then explain the procedure you're about to go through.

We live in a world where airplanes attract way more than their fair share of terrorism - we need to accept that fact. We can't pretend that people won't try to bomb airplanes, even if there are much easier ways to kill people.

Nobody has proved that an undergarment bomb can be effective at bringing down an airliner. Besides what stops an up the ass or breast implant based device?

Re:A non-partisan no-brainer (4, Informative)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221888)

do they avoid the doctor's office as well?

If you have to strip naked when you go to the doctor, there's something wrong and you should get another doctor.

We live in a world where airplanes attract way more than their fair share of terrorism - we need to accept that fact

The US hasn't really had any significant experience of terrorism. We had it for decades in the UK, thanks to the Irish Republicans (and indeed the various loyalist groups, although they mostly kept themselves to NI without going into the rest of the UK). We didn't find it necessary to strip-search everyone who went into a hotel, or onto a train.

Re:A non-partisan no-brainer (4, Insightful)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221898)

We live in a world where airplanes attract way more than their fair share of terrorism..

No we don't. We live in a world where cowards like yourself believe that despite the massive weight of evidence.

Re:A non-partisan no-brainer (3, Informative)

dcollins (135727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221900)

Wow, that whole post reads like a drug-induced hallucination. Every bit of it is false. However, I'll just comment on this part:

"Terrorists don't go after low-hanging fruit... they go after the spectacular. Otherwise they'd be bombing suburban bus and train routes, malls, and other places which are almost impossible to police."

Um, yeah, that happens, like, every day in Israel, the greater Middle East, Pakistan and Afghanistan? Three days ago a car bomb blew up a building in the center of Karachi (Pakistan's largest city). Link. [washingtontimes.com] Two weeks ago a bomber killed 20 people in Istanbul's tourist and shopping center. Link. [nydailynews.com] The last attempted terrorist bombing in the U.S., in May, was in the shopping/entertainment area of Times Square. Link. [delta-optimist.com]

Re:A non-partisan no-brainer (1, Insightful)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221714)

the faux conservatives that put "security" (read: invading the privacy of citizens to expand the power of the state) over liberty.

So where were you during the passage of the new healthcare policy last year?

Re:A non-partisan no-brainer (5, Informative)

jhigh (657789) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221842)

I was managing the campaign of a United States Senate candidate that actually read the health care law and was a rabid opponent of it, holding town hall meetings all over the state educating voters about how bad the bill was. Why, what were you doing, complaining about it on Slashdot?

Since you have to raise your hands... (4, Funny)

wiredog (43288) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221594)

and take off your belt while going through the scanner, my plan is to wear loose pants and go commando.

Says it all (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221598)

Any pilots who don't feel comfortable after undergoing a pat-down have been encouraged to 'call in sick and remove themselves from the trip

An uncomfortable pilot is a distracted pilot. As a passenger I put my full trust in the folk up front to do their job safely and efficiently and I'd rather they weren't getting distracted. It's not like they need any extra tools or equipment to crash a plane.

Meet "The Resistance" (5, Funny)

BadEvilYoda (935532) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221604)

This article by Jeffrey Goldberg is both sad, hilarious, and informative. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-first-time-the-tsa-meets-resistance/65390/ [theatlantic.com] "We have to search up your thighs and between your legs until we meet resistance," he explained. "Resistance?" I asked. "Your testicles," he explained. "That's funny," I said, "because 'The Resistance' is the actual name I've given to my testicles."

Be safer than sorry when it comes to cancer (4, Interesting)

kaptink (699820) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221606)

Why just do this on one day only when you can make this your default choice? I'd rather be safe than sorry when it comes to cancer. And I dont much like being treated like a naughty child by the TSA or whoever either.

Re:Be safer than sorry when it comes to cancer (1)

dcollins (135727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221780)

I think the point is -- If you haven't do so already, start on this day.

Re:Be safer than sorry when it comes to cancer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221864)

I think the real point is -- you should not have to choose between being photographed nude and being physically molested. "Opting Out" is a traumatic experience, and that is no accident. If you haven't opted out since the first of the month, give it a shot. Come back and tell us what the point was.

Re:Be safer than sorry when it comes to cancer (2, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221920)

I think the TSA is counting on most people being to shy and hurried to make this their default choice. Planning ahead to send a message will help more people clear those hurdles.

Inciting terrorism? (1)

fuyu-no-neko (839858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221608)

Am I cynical to think that the government will want to paint this as inciting an act of terrorism?* I'm just hoping that Joe Public isn't that stupid. Yet.

* I imagine that such a protest will cause the system to slow to a crawl, harming the law abiding citizen's ability to travel or somesuch.

Go further (2, Insightful)

funkatron (912521) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221614)

Most people have a "grab there, get hit" policy (well, less formally acknowledged than that) in their daily lives. I don't think there'd be too much fuss if people applied it to the manual search.

False dichotomy (4, Insightful)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221626)

Opting out of the body scanner is opting in to the invasive pat-down. "Opting out" merely validates the false dichotomy put forth by the TSA.

Won't work (5, Insightful)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221634)

Trying to annoy the TSA for a day will do absolutely nothing. If you want to end these policies, refuse to fly until they're gone. If airlines see their bank accounts turn red with no hope of them being profitable unless the TSA is removed, you better believe they'll start doing everything imaginable to get rid of the TSA.

Re:Won't work (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221738)

The US airlines are already suffering because of TSA.

I just bought a ticket for a trip from Ottawa to Punta Cana. The cheap flight was American Airlines via some US connection. For $100 more, I could avoid the US and fly directly on Westjet (a Canadian airline). There really wasn't much of a choice, I picked the direct flight. Saved time, avoided TSA. (Well, not completely. They still require info because of the US overflight. But getting into a database is less invasive than a personal search.)

Re:Won't work (5, Insightful)

dcollins (135727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221774)

"Trying to annoy the TSA for a day will do absolutely nothing. If you want to end these policies, refuse to fly until they're gone."

Totally disagree. Organized public action is necessary to get results.

The point isn't to annoy the TSA so much. The point is to get the other passengers thinking about and discussing the issue. (Website's 1st line: "OptOutDay.com is an educational outreach campaign, designed to get people to better understand what they are now consenting to when they purchase a plane ticket.") Private, invisible, personal non-purchases will not serve to publicize the issue among the electorate.

Re:Won't work (1)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221802)

And why are you assuming that people can't / won't tell everyone they know that "I'm not flying due to these new searches"?

People try all the time to do these "annoy a company for a day" events (the most common being "don't buy any gas on day X) - and they all have one thing in common........they never amount to anything because after that day's over, people go right back to acting as they did before. This one will fail worse than others since you're still rewarding the airlines and the TSA with your money that day, you're just getting a handjob with your flight as well.

Heads I win; Tails you lose... (1)

bornagainpenguin (1209106) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221788)

If airlines see their bank accounts turn red with no hope of them being profitable unless the TSA is removed,

they'll hit us up for some more bail out money because everyone knows in Corporate America companies can capitalize the profits and socialize the losses.

This will do about as good as refusing to buy music from the RIAA, you're a pirate no matter how primly you refuse to buy their products or download their albums.

Conservative issue too. (5, Insightful)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221636)

Hello Teabaggers and my fellow Government conservatives! These scanners are just one big pile of stinking pork [cnn.com] AND it's a violation of our beloved Constitution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution [slashdot.org]>The Fourth Amendment:

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures.

This is a prime example of where "if you do nothing wrong; then you have nothing to worry about" is shown to be bullshit.

These airport scanners and pat downs dishonor our troops and everyone who has ever died fighting for our country!

We are supposed to be the home of the free and the brave, let's act like it! The Europeans don't do this. They don't even allow the scanners! Are they braver and more free than we are?! It sure looks like it!

I think everyone on both sides can agree, this is just too much!

Re:Conservative issue too. (4, Interesting)

Alioth (221270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221778)

Perhaps the new motto ought to be: Land of the sheep, home of the scared?

US paranoia has reached an incredible level. Yesterday I was in Madrid Barajas airport to travel to Liverpool, and there were automatic announcements advising passengers should turn up at the gate for US-bound flights an hour and a half before the boarding time of the aircraft to make it though enhanced security. If you have luggage to check I suspect you now have to turn up at the airport 3.5 to 4 hours before the actual departure time for a US bound flight.

Re:Conservative issue too. (5, Insightful)

tick-tock-atona (1145909) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221784)

At this stage, most democracies around the world are more free than the US.

This cognitive dissonance of declaring yourselves the "land of the free, home of the brave" is quite astonishing given that:

How the hell are you people not making a bigger noise about these three egregious violations of your liberty?

If the sheep fight back, they won't like it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221640)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovyKogICCkQ&feature=player_embedded

imagine that?

Also known as... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221660)

Also known as "National Get-Added-To-The-No-Fly-List Day"

so what's to prevent (3, Interesting)

doginthewoods (668559) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221664)

People from simply removing all of their clothing when they are "hand searched"? Or demanding that a LEO be present at the search? Or demanding that the search be video'd? If the search is "public", then can someone tape it? Or getting the name of the employees who search you?

By the way, where did that 'bagger come from from up thread? What a parrot.... Prove a negative, indeed....

WELCOME TO AMERICA THESE ARE YOUR BALLS IN MY HAND (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221668)

AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

You americans crackle me right up.

Security Theater Showdown (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221710)

As much as this is so very much needed in the U.S., and other countries that practice this farce of security, in reality I doubt the call to refuse won't be in the minds of the majority that only think of getting to point B. I'm sure that the powers that be realize this and know that is what is going through most peoples minds as they get ready to board a plane. "Gotta get to point B, no matter what the cost or seemingly minor inconvenience of the loss privacy.". If it was me, and I was a U.S. citizen, I would be having all sorts of fun making their job as unpleasant as possible. Soon as they start screaming "Opt-out!!", I'd do that too. "Hey everybody I'm an opt-out! I'M AN OPT-OUT! Look at me, I don't want to go through the scanner!" As a man, I'd ask for a woman to pat me down. I know how well that will go over with the goons. So, I'd probably get a guy. Since he's going to be touching me in places he shouldn't may as well ask him to milk my prostate while he's at it. Make it more uncomfortable for him than it is for me. Just some suggestions for those who have to go through this bullshit.

I bet there won't be more than 5% that refuse the scanners, and insist or refuse the pat down. Any takers? Place your bets now as to the % of people who refuse scanners

Re:Security Theater Showdown (4, Interesting)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221926)

Make it more uncomfortable for him than it is for me. Just some suggestions for those who have to go through this bullshit.

When you come back from your "pat-down" be sure to tell all the other passengers to ask for *that* particular screener, because he give excellent hand-jobs. See how red you can make him turn.

Sending the wrong message... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221740)

While opting out of the security procedures set forth by TSA may send a message, all it says that we don't like our goodies being shown or handled in public. Not flying at all would send a bigger message, that we'd rather not fly than be subjected to these procedures.

I wouldn't hold my breath on either. For every person that opts out, there's plenty more that will put up with it in order to get to their destination on schedule.

"National Get Into It" Month instead? (1)

The Second Horseman (121958) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221752)

Want to get the TSA screeners begging to get the policy changed? Have as many people as possible ask for the pat down and act like they're enjoying it when the agent gets to the "right spots". Might as well make them as uncomfortable as they're making everyone else. Just don't move much or do anything to prevent the pat-down.Nothing wrong with a few involuntary sounds, right?

Re:"National Get Into It" Month instead? (1)

funkatron (912521) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221884)

I'm already banned from my doctors for similar reasons. I don't want to get banned from flying too.

Terrorists have declared Nov 24 as ... (1)

fkx (453233) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221758)

Terrorists have declared Nov 24 as ...

"GO FOR IT" DAY ...

They see the internet, too.

Age-old history theory... (0, Troll)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221760)

While I can understand the continued harassment of passengers via new policies and procedures is indeed getting out of hand, the fastest way to the corner of History Ave. and Repeats St. is to go back to how things were before.

Wait until Japanese here about a new pat-down (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221812)

There will be special tours to watch pat-down in US airports. Complete with actresses in Sailor Moon outfits undergoing pat-down with eye rolling, blushing and moaning before videorecording tourists.

change... (1)

xushi (740195) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221820)

Not flying for one day won't change shit.. Not flying until they change the rules won't change shit. You think it'll bankrupt the airlines into removing these? They'll just get bailed out by the government with non-existent tax money, find another excuse for the shortage of profit, or - guess what? - wait a few months and return to normal as if nothing happened because - with all due respect - UK people are such gullible hypocrites that just can't change or voice shit...

Seriously, you really think we can change anything in the UK if the government or some higher power has its mind set ? Get real... or get some pipe bombs, AK47's, and make your point the same way the French do..

HOW TO END TSA NONSENSE AND BE A GOOD AMERICAN! (5, Interesting)

Greymoon (834879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221840)

When traveling this holiday season, opt out of any porn scanners. Opt out LOUDLY. Say “I OPT OUT” while you smile at the nearest TSA agent. Be polite and move on to step two, the Pat Down. Getting a hand pat down. Teach your children to shout LOUDLY, “STOP TOUCHING ME in a SEXUAL MANNER!”. Adults shout LOUDLY, “Stop TOUCHING ME in a SEXUAL MANNER!”. Smile and be polite as you do this. Children are allowed and encouraged to cry. Video the whole escapade with sound and as clearly as possible. Post to youtube.com Behold the power of the Internet. Game on Janet!

How to change their tune (1)

WinstonWolfIT (1550079) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221902)

One commercial airliner spiralling into the ocean, or worse, into a civilian target, will pop them into line quick-smart, and won't hear about their violated rights again to the end of their self-centred days.

Flying isn't a right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221910)

...and those providing that service, and security, can put whatever restrictions on you. So you either take the scan, or the patdown, or you don't fly, and that's that. I don't have a problem with it. If you do, get on the bus, or in your car, and drive. If going overseas, get on the boat, and take weeks getting to where you wanna go.

You have choices in all ways that you travel, some people just don't like the alternatives and would rather blame airport security.

Re:Flying isn't a right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221952)

what about a pat down for the bus? Or your car? when will it end, that's the point. You must be from Australia!

Time for a new line of clothing products (3, Funny)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221922)

I think I'll start manufacturing a line of undergarments that have metal threads woven into them with sayings like "I do not consent to invasive searches", "TSA scanners are a violation of my 4th Amendment rights", etc.

I wonder what the TSA response would be if they started seeing people wearing underwear, etc. that effectively blocked the scanners from seeing ones "naughty bits" and possibly also included slogans like these?

Flying != basic human right. (0)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221962)

Can you believe the various authorities actually *force* engineers to build safety margins into aircraft? And *force* aircraft to take off with enough fuel to make alternate landing sites? Can you imagine the humiliation?

When did sitting in a thin metal tube surrounded by barely controlled raging fires and flammable liquid whilst travelling thousands of miles at 30k feet become some kind of basic human right?

We're all allowed to fly without a pat-down, you just need to buy your own aircraft and get trained. One of the first things you'll be taught however, is that passengers are one of the most dangerous things on an aircraft. Even if they're not trying to take a plane down intentionally.

Personally, I would rather fly on an aircraft where I know that everybody, myself included, had been scanned. What about my rights?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...