×

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!

Bruce Schneier vs. the TSA

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the sees-right-through-them dept.

Transportation 741

An anonymous reader writes "Bruce Schneier has posted a huge recap of the controversy over TSA body scanners, including more information about the lawsuit he joined to ban them. There's too much news to summarize, but it covers everything from Penn Jillette's and Dave Barry's grope stories, to Israeli experts who say this isn't needed and hasn't ever stopped a bomb, to the three-year-old girl who was traumatized by being groped and much, much more." Another reader passed along a related article, which says, "Congressman Ron Paul lashed out at the TSA yesterday and introduced a bill aimed at stopping federal abuse of passengers. Paul’s proposed legislation would pave the way for TSA employees to be sued for feeling up Americans and putting them through unsafe naked body scanners."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

741 comments

Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (-1, Troll)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286256)

Once again, I notice the Slashdot bias or leaving the party affiliation of an elected official off if it's a Republican but would be seen as a positive, or a Democrat doing something most /.er's would see as a negative...

Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (0, Troll)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286282)

Ron Paul is a Republican by convenience. In reality, he mainly belongs to the Deluded Insane Libertarian Party For The Deluded And Insane. Ron Paul's chief good point is that he's smarter than that chromosomally-damaged offspring of his, Rand Paul.

Go ahead all you retarded Randite mods, mod this down. I've got more karma than you braindead halfwits have neurons.

Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (1, Offtopic)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286298)

Ron Paul stood for nomination as Republican presidential candidate. This got a lot of attention on Slashdot. If there's anyone here who doesn't know that he's a Republican, they must have been asleep for the past few years. No one puts a (D) after Obama or Pelosi - it's assumed that everyone already knows their affiliation.

Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286434)

If there's anyone here who doesn't know that he's a Republican, they must have been asleep for the past few years.

Or like me, they just don't care. Not my country - not my problem*.

*Ron Paul's political affiliation.

Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (1, Insightful)

wowbagger (69688) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286304)

Oh, to the slashbots, Ron Paul is far WORSE than being a Republican: He is a Republican who actually BELIEVES in smaller government, who has consistently acted on those grounds, and campaigns for it. He is a Libertarian in disguise! He must be reviled at every turn, and any time he does good, it must be drowned out! slashbots cannot let the idea of personal responsibility and small government take hold - while they are quite happy to see the government prevented from interfering with their vices, the idea that the government won't give them free stuff and that they might actually be held accountable for their own actions and the consequences thereof - that's just crazy talk.

Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (4, Interesting)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286422)

... aaand the fact that he is, amongst other things, also a religious loon who wants to remove the separation of state and religion and that he wants the US government to establish an Official Religion (it would be one of those few very critical remaining functions his much-much-smaller government would perform) has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it ... its just all us lazy slouches here trying to avoid "responsibility!" Its a conspiracy of the hippies, I tell you!

Wants US government to establish Official Religion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34286518)

citation needed

Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (1)

FiloEleven (602040) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286740)

wants to remove the separation of state and religion and that he wants the US government to establish an Official Religion

[citation needed]

Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (1, Offtopic)

wolfsdaughter (1081205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286472)

Is it just me, or do libertarians seem to believe that it's better to be abused by a corporation than by the government. Maybe they thing they'll be the one in the corporation that gets to do the abusing... I dunno

Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34286494)

If you don't like how a corporation does business, you're free not to do business with them.

Or start your own company that does thing "right". If the corporation you don't like is doing things so "wrong", surely you'd have no trouble beating them in the marketplace.

Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286524)

> If you don't like how a corporation does business, you're free not to do business with them.

That's such a funny thing for someone to say on a tech forum.

Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34286614)

Why? What corporation are you FORCED to do business with, or else you'd die?

Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (1)

WCguru42 (1268530) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286728)

Why? What corporation are you FORCED to do business with, or else you'd die?

Pharmaceutical companies? That's one of them.

Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (2, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286650)

If I don't like how a government conducts its business, I can always vote for a different one... Funny how everything is alike

Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34286720)

So the majority should be free to abuse the minority any way they want, since the majority controls the government? So slavery and genocide would be okay, as long as the majority supports it?

Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286698)

It is just you.

Libertarians believe that abuse is real crime, as opposed to thought (aka "hate") crimes of the left.

We also realize that do to the nature of corporatism corporations come and go, but government is for ever (more or less). It is easier to remove and demolish a corporation that it is to remove one bad law. So in a way, I'd rather have a corporation abusing me, than the government, one I have some recourse the other I have none.

Go, fly the airlines and try to get around the security theater (government) and out of the Porno Scans or Sexual Battery. You try to set up either of those for your "private" business and see how well that goes.

Or are you so dense that you think the answer is MORE government even when it is Government which is the problem? We just need more regulation (that doesn't work) don't we?

Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34286746)

Supposedly corporations are limited in what they can do, for example in the video Ron Paul stated that if we did that the TSA did, we would be arrested (well, corporations cannot be arrested but they can be sued). The TSA, being fully backed by the government, apparently can legally molest us and save naked pictures of us, where a corporation would probably not have carte blanche, and would have legal ramifications for doing so.

Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34286332)

Ron Paul is my hero 3!!! Working hard to keep America sane and prosperous. Oooo! And we have his awesome son, Rand, following his lead. It makes me all mushy inside.

Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (1)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286338)

I think you're being a bit paranoid.

First, I think slashdotters are fairly familiar with who Ron Paul is and what party he belongs to. Second, that's a direct quote from the news article, which doesn't note his party affiliation either. So, unless you think slashdot editors have the power to manipulate other journalists to leave off Ron Paul's party affiliation to conform to your perceived bias, I can't see any sort of basis for your belief.

Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286364)

Of course you have just presented yourself as a person who cares more about someone's party affiliation than the actual content of whatever they are saying. Did you even bother to read - never mind, I know the answer. Just keep voting for your party and hope that things will get better. They won't. What the hell is the point of giving someone a vote when they don't even understand or care what they're voting for? /rant

Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34286418)

They also failed to include the party affiliation of Bruce Schneier, Penn and Dave Barry. And I bet they didn't even think to talk to Teller about this.

Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (4, Funny)

schon (31600) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286514)

bet they didn't even think to talk to Teller about this.

I'm pretty sure he wouldn't say anything.

Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (2, Informative)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286432)

Did you just miss the story about the Oregon senator blocking COICA? I had to consult Wikipedia to find out that the guy was a democrat. Every time I've ever seen a story regarding specific politicians I don't recall seeing party affiliation. And Ron Paul is high profile enough that if you don't know his affiliation then you're not paying attention and not interested in these kinds of stories anyway.

I tend to find that Slashdot's readership is left-leaning, but you're really grasping at straws here and it's embarrassing.

Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34286496)

You mean the way that "Democrat" was plastered prominently all over the article immediately preceding this one, "Your Rights Online: Oregon Senator Seeks To Block COICA"?

You're an whining idiot who apparently needs to feel repressed in order to feel any self-worth.

Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286500)

You do know there's no bias to slashdot other than the preponderance of its readers, right?

Take your ritalin, Garth.

Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (2, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286538)

Oh please! Ron Paul is a rat. He just wants to privatize the system to get people to look away from the government. And his "show" bill to put congress people through the same process is just that, a show, something that would never pass, and he knows it.

Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (2, Informative)

PatPending (953482) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286542)

AND YET--the preceding story [slashdot.org] has this summary:

"The COICA copyright bill may have sailed through committee, but that doesn't mean it's a done deal. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, calling it the 'wrong medicine' to block copyright violations, is threatening to put a hold on the bill, which would block its adoption through at least the end of the year."

Senator Ron Wyden is a Democrat.

Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286544)

Only thing Ron Paul has said or done that I agree with.

I don't agree that they skipped out on his party affiliation, just down the page they mention Ron Wyden's blocking COICA and don't mention party.

Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (1)

rokstar (865523) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286694)

Quoting from TFS of the previous story on /. "The COICA copyright bill may have sailed through committee, but that doesn't mean it's a done deal. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, calling it the 'wrong medicine' to block copyright violations, is threatening to put a hold on the bill, which would block its adoption through at least the end of the year." Ron Wyden is a Democrat and yet no (D) in that title either. Grow up and quit whining.

Biggest legal issue, IMO (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34286290)

how is scanning teenagers not considered manufacturing CP?

we all know the images will be saved, they have to be. After all, what kind of security outfit would not want the capability to go back and look at the images after a future terror attempt happens? Of course they'll want to go back and review surveillance footage and these images, to see if they need to change thresholds or procedures, to see if/what they missed.

So given that it's a given they are saving them for forensics purposes (and perhaps for evidenciary purposes if a terrorist was brough to trial), isn't this the outright manufacture of child porn?

Re:Biggest legal issue, IMO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34286464)

Doesn't matter if it's CP or not. The government cannot do illegal things.

Re:Biggest legal issue, IMO (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34286658)

Doesn't matter if it's CP or not. The government cannot do illegal things.

Yes, it can. The Constitution defines what the Government is allowed to do, so whenever Government does something that the Constitution does not allow it to do (especially when the violation is blatant and performed knowingly), the Government is doing an illegal thing.

Re:Biggest legal issue, IMO (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34286478)

isn't this the outright manufacture of child porn?

You are being obtuse. Intent is 90% of the law. There is a clear and obvious difference between a security guard seeing an x-ray of someone naked while searching for weapons, and a person taking nude pictures for fun or profit. The law instructs judges to consider what a "reasonable person" would think of a situation.

Re:Biggest legal issue, IMO (1)

eepok (545733) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286636)

isn't this the outright manufacture of child porn?

You are being obtuse. Intent is 90% of the law.

 
Until it involves sex. Then, it's 100% about appearances and political grandstanding.

Re:Biggest legal issue, IMO (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34286546)

If you don't have anything to hide you don't have anything to worry about.

Re:Biggest legal issue, IMO (2, Informative)

Apuleius (6901) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286628)

Well, they are not posing lasciviously, so it could still be legal. But never mind that. Legal issues are easy to deal with: change the law.

Moral issues are another matter. And the issue there is simple:

Young girls should not have to have their boobs bared by this scanner just to fly.

Re:Biggest legal issue, IMO (2, Interesting)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286632)

"how is scanning teenagers not considered manufacturing CP?"

The scans have no Pedobear seal of approval.

Re:Biggest legal issue, IMO (5, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286660)

I'm more concerned with the reports of "enhanced patdowns" used on underage children. Having an image like that on some government computer is nasty, but unlikely to cause any lasting harm to the kid as long as it never leaks out into the wild (which is a real possibility, I'll grant).

However, what does it tell the child when a government employee is allowed to touch them in areas their parents have been telling them all their lives no one but the doctor is allowed to touch them? While the parents stand by powerless to do anything about it? In full view of hundreds of other people? Are we supposed to amend what we tell our children to "no one can touch you there, unless they happen to have some kind of perceived authority over you or if they're wearing a uniform"?

Re:Biggest legal issue, IMO (4, Informative)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286744)

I am legal, and if they want some naked pictures of a fat man, I will hand them stuff from my portfolio personally. They don't need to try and trick me to get them

What is wrong in America? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34286292)

Why is that a country founded on the ideological rejection of tyranny is creeping ever closer to the text book example of abuses of power?

Re:What is wrong in America? (3, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286346)

It's like with Ancient Rome...it becomes stale and one day you have to reboot. Any volunteers to board Juneflower?

Fear (4, Insightful)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286358)

It all started on 9/11, when instead of reacting to the attacks as a matter for coordinated worldwide policing, we elevated those fuckers to the same status as a nation-state and decided to declare war on anyone and everyone who didn't instantly get in line behind us. We stoked our own fear to an insane degree, and it's already boomeranged back on us in so many ways. This is just one more self-inflicted wound in a long line of idiotic mistakes we've made over the last nine years.

Re:Fear (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286584)

The growth of the intrusive bureaucratic state has been happening throughout the West since at least WWI. This is just a symptom of that growth, it's nothing new.

Re:Fear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34286726)

If I had mod points...

Oblig. Alpha Centauri quote (best Civ game ever) (4, Insightful)

rsborg (111459) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286536)

link [generationterrorists.com]

As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

Commissioner Pravin Lal
"U.N. Declaration of Rights"

Re:What is wrong in America? (3, Insightful)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286560)

Why is that a country founded on the ideological rejection of tyranny is creeping ever closer to the text book example of abuses of power?

Why? That's an easy question to answer: because we're human. They're the classic reasons: greed, power, money, etc. There are a lot of people getting paid for the TSA to be so big, and a lot of people in a lot of positions of power. Because people are people, corruption comes out of that.

The question isn't "why", because the answer is always the same. The question should be "is anyone doing anything about it?" Thankfully, it appears that finally this major issue is receiving the type of response that it should. This is obviously a breach of fourth amendment rights, and the Israelis have proven that it's possible to have a higher level of security with a minimal level of interference, without simply outright violating people's rights in the name of security. Everyone needs to continue pressure to figure out a way to make air travel secure while not violating everyone's rights, because it's obviously possible and just not happening.

It seems to me like "grope them" is the reaction you get when you can't think of anything better, so there might be some problems with the people making these policies.

The fact that people are at least starting to stand up against those policies and for their rights is the right reaction and it's reassuring to see it finally happening. That's what makes this country strong: not the fact that we can stop everything from happening, but the fact that we change it if it does.

Ben Franklin said it best:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously) (5, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286314)

It's been a while since the 9/11 attacks, and maybe later updated information was hidden back in the classified ads of my newspaper - but I thought that the consensus was the 9/11 hijackers did not bring their boxcutters onto the plane with them. So these increasingly intrusive TSA make-work tactics would have had zero effect on the worst terrorist attack in US history.

Not to mention that, post 9/11, passengers and crew realize now that modern-day hijackers are mainly interested in killing everyone on the plane. So in the attempts that have followed, passengers and/or the crew have successfully thwarted those attempts. That's the real solution - an aware public.

These silly "solutions" the TSA keeps rolling out don't seem to be accomplishing anything other than annoying air travelers. If any of these measures had actually demonstrably stopped even one attempted attack, don't you think the TSA would be crowing it from the rooftops?

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously) (1)

MrQuacker (1938262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286362)

Where is the money on that though? That would stop the TSA from spending millions on these machines. Sure, all this could be accomplished with a few nice posters in airports telling people what to look out for. But we all know that'll never happen.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously) (0, Offtopic)

MichaelKristopeit166 (1939482) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286392)

individuals are seemingly not willing to take responsibility for themselves, yet demand utilization of machines and infrastructures they alone would not be able to construct or maintain.

the populace is on a trend towards ignorant hypocrisy... same as this website.

slashdot = stagnated

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously) (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34286568)

You cut me deep man. I was with you but sayign slashdot = sta...

I can't even finish it. Such an offence should be punishable by stoning>i'm so mad and humiliated that I'll have to forgo my last cup of coffee. Do you hear that I will not drink another cup of coffee until I finish typing this post. That's how pissed I am right now! Woe is us the forlorned slhashdotters to have to read such a typance! I will rue the day, November something, that I first read that dread ful phrase. I hope you know that I shall never forget what ever it was that you wrote. Something about stagnates? A pond maybe? I like ponds. You bastard, pond ,hating scum!

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously) (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286458)

Generally speaking the stuff airport security inflicts on travellers is not based on finding effective ways of preventing terrorists. Look at the recent incidents with bombs in luggage - it has been done before (Locherby) and we can build cargo containers and aircraft that are bomb-proof. It costs too much and slows the system down a lot so nothing was done. Even now they are only planning to check a small)l percentage of packages.

On the other hand harrassing travellers is a lot easier and more practical. It generates sales for equipment manufacturers. It is very visible so everyone knows you are doing something to protect them.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously) (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286540)

The presumption is that employees of the airports and airlines are now trustworthy and would-be perpetrators would have to enter the secure zone via the TSA checkpoint. Of course, that presumption is bullshit [google.com] .

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously) (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34286548)

John Pistole (head of TSA) tipped his hand when bragging about the effectiveness of the screening.

His brag is that he has thwarted terrorists, by siezing terror tools such as marijuana and a heroin needle.

Now, marijuana and a heroin needle will not bring down a plane, so what's really happening here?

A DEA agent, or police officer, cant run around shoving his hand down everyones pants looking for drugs. Without cause, that would be an illegal search, and the evidence obtained would be useful.

However, when the illegal search is made privately (I shove my hand down a strangers pants, then call the cops when i find a baggie of weed), the evidence is admissable. I may be charged with assault or something, but the point is the DEA has now made an end run around the 4rth amendment.

That is what this is. The TSA are *not* police, the search is obstensibly for security purposes, but when they find that baggie of weed, it's turned over to the cops and DEA who do their whole civil forfeiture routine.

You might remember a scheme to have postal employees 'on the lookout for terror' right after 9/11. Same thing there. The dumb old constitution limits police power, and they fucking hate it.

The country is bankrupt. They need to sieze more houses, cars, and boats. This is just a loophole through the constitution, and a brand new (illegal) battlefield for the War on Drugs, which is much more profitable than the War on Terror. More people die in a day crossing the road than have ever died of terrorism in the USA. They know there's no real threat.

So, once this is accepted, the TSA will move the road show to train and subway stations, and then start random roadside searches of cars. Look to see more bullshit agencies created by executive order, to illegally search - i mean safety screen - you in other venues as well. After all, a Phish concert certainly is a decent terrorist target, right? We want all those people to be safe, after all.

IANAL, and perhaps a real one could clarify what I'm saying, or tell me why I'm wrong.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34286678)

It's been a while since the 9/11 attacks, and maybe later updated information was hidden back in the classified ads of my newspaper - but I thought that the consensus was the 9/11 hijackers did not bring their boxcutters onto the plane with them. So these increasingly intrusive TSA make-work tactics would have had zero effect on the worst terrorist attack in US history.

The fact that something will not prevent one particular tactic doesn't mean it is useless. The proper question is how the odds of a successful attach change. You might believe that the TSA's work doesn't reduce the odds at all, or that the cost of the TSA is not worth the reduction in odds they achieve. However, the evidence you present does not show that.

By your logic, the following argument is valid: "People can die of dehydration. Eating food does not stop dehydration. Therefor, eating is a useless and wasteful thing to do."

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously) (2, Insightful)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286680)

but I thought that the consensus was the 9/11 hijackers did not bring their boxcutters onto the plane with them.

I don't know why they wouldn't have: TSA regulations at the time said anyone was allowed to.

So these increasingly intrusive TSA make-work tactics would have had zero effect on the worst terrorist attack in US history.

Well, the first step when they forbid boxcutters, bats, scissors and darts made some sense. The rest, not as much.

Of course, you're right that a change in public attitude (and official hijack response doctrine) from "give the hijackers control" to "risk everyone onboards' lives to stop the hijacking" solves a huge number of problems. And common sense efforts by a few other people have closed the rest of the gaps.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously) (1)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286688)

So these increasingly intrusive TSA make-work tactics would have had zero effect on the worst terrorist attack in US history.

Is that relevant? The TSA's goal is to stop future attacks, however they might occur... not to stop only attacks that repeat the tactics of 9/11.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously) (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34286742)

"in the attempts that have followed the passengers and/or crew have thwarted attempts"

Exactly. Arm everyone. In Vermont we can carry hidden weapons. We don't need no stinking government permits. You never know if the person you're confronted is carrying a hidden handgun and will whip it out to shoot you. That knowledge makes you a whole LOT more respectful and it means that we have the weapons to take on a terrorists, bank robber, home intruder, etc.

Lastly, get a dog. Get a lot of dogs. Nobody messes with my dogs. If everyone took a full pack of dogs on the airplanes then we would not have any terror attempts. Merely dog food.

Chertoff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34286324)

I think there should be a criminal investigation into Chertoff and his company that sells them
how he has the audacity to recommend them as part of his goverment job, then go work for the company that makes them just shows you the standards of his ethics, makes you wonder how he came by those millions in his bank account

Dignity, honour and shame are words that are sorely missing in Washington

The Freedom Fondle went too far, it seems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34286350)

Torture, okay. Wiretapping, ok. Touching my daughter....woah, slow down, Tex.

Re:The Freedom Fondle went too far, it seems (1)

hguorbray (967940) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286402)

Why do they hate our Freedom?

Oh that's right they're fascists and are determined to take it away -then people will pity us rather than hate us

-I'm just sayin'

I'd feel safer... (5, Insightful)

MrQuacker (1938262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286372)

I would feel safer if we got rid of the TSA and just had one or two fully decked out marines on board each flight. Would be cheaper too...

Re:I'd feel safer... (5, Insightful)

k2enemy (555744) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286462)

I would feel safer if we got rid of the TSA and just had one or two fully decked out marines on board each flight. Would be cheaper too...

Even that would be a complete waste of money. After 9/11 passengers know that if the plane gets hijacked they will likely die. The passengers and crew will now prevent a hijacking just as a Marine would. The other easy to imagine threat is that someone tries to blow up the plane. In that case a Marine isn't going to be much help. We would be better off devoting the money to intelligence and investigation.

Re:I'd feel safer... (2, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286558)

Which is why nobody's trying to stop hijackings. They're trying to stop mid-air explosions that can be set off without anyone noticing before it's too late.

Re:I'd feel safer... (2, Insightful)

Target Practice (79470) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286578)

The passengers and crew will now prevent a hijacking just as a Marine would.

The marine could carry weaponry onto the plane, the civilians can't. We'll get a nice police state once we all start asking for it. Military police roaming around our civilian lives sure is better than the gropings, right?

The solution is simple (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34286394)

Every passenger deserves the right to request to have their enhanced patdown conducted in private, by the agents mom.

Body scans for good bodies (4, Interesting)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286436)

A few weeks ago, I flew out of Lihue, Kauai. They have one 'scanner'. I guess thats what it is. A fancier version of booth then the usual metal detector that they optionally put people through. As I waited in line, the only person they subjected to the extra scan was one hot looking blonde lady wearing a flimsy blouse, cutoff shorts and flip-flops.

Where do I sign up for one of these TSA jobs?

Re:Body scans for good bodies (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286666)

When I flew out of Honolulu last month they had a dedicated agricultural scanner as the first line of defense protecting us from pineapples of mass destruction. After you went through that and got your tag, you got to enjoy the rest of the cirque de la sécurité.

Catholic priests flock to join TSA (5, Funny)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286450)

In the wake of Transport Security Administration staff forcing a "full pat-down" on a three-year-old child, Catholic priests have been clamouring [newstechnica.com] to work for the government department.

The TSA, which has apprehended only slightly less than one terrorist in its nine years of operation, welcomed the new recruits to the fold. "We need people with experience in dealing with young people," said TSA head John Pistole, "in telling people what to do and in making the innocent feel guilty. And the enthusiasm! They're not your typical bored minimum-wager, no way! Also, they have better uniforms."

Mr Pistole reiterated the patriotic duty that drives the TSA in their work. "Fondling little girls' genitals is vital to protecting America from TERRORISTS. Remember: if TSA staff can't finger your daughter, the TERRORISTS have won!" He then strangled a kitten for our photographer.

Cardinal Bernard Law returned to America from the Vatican especially for the opportunity to create government-funded child pornography with the new "naked" scanners. "It's top quality stuff, too. The tears, the pain — the things that make this sort of thing really worthwhile."

"They were nasty men," said three-year-old TSA molestee Mandy Simon. "But it clearly demonstrates the iron necessity of the holy Jihadic destruction of the West. Allahu akbar! Daddy? I done a boo-boo."

Sadly it took me a while to realize (4, Insightful)

rsborg (111459) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286572)

Your linked article is satire. But I didn't really know if it was satire until I read it through.

The terrorists have won.

It doesn't end there... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34286504)

Our rights are being stripped. This is but the tip of the ice berg. The government Borg are forcing through S.510 to take away our control over our own food, NAIS and other things. The Patriot Act was just one example of this occulsion of freedom.

Israeli Airport Security folks are professionals (4, Interesting)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286526)

My employer has a lab in Haifa, and I know a number of folks who have traveled to Israel on business. They have also traveled to the US, post 9/11. They all state that the Israeli security folks are really detectives, who are very intelligent, ask misleading questions and evaluate the responses. All very "human / personal based." They all felt safe when entering the plane.

The US security seems to be base on technology. You have security folks, who are only capable of identifying a terrorist if the machine beeps.

This reminds me of how despite all the high tech satellite surveillance of Iraq, the wrong conclusions came out of the US intelligence agencies. Allen Dulles ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Dulles [wikipedia.org] ) was much better at recognizing the higher value of "human intellegence" (HUMINT).

So what am I ranting about? I would rather be grilled a Inspector Columbo at a security check, than scanned by a machine operated by some doofus.

That would make me feel much safer.

Re:Israeli Airport Security folks are professional (1, Informative)

MrQuacker (1938262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286620)

Yeah, but you need to keep in mind the number of airports israel has. Its easier to have good security when you only have a few airports to worry about. The US has hundreds.

Re:Israeli Airport Security folks are professional (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286624)

haha, the only differense if Israeli method is just a different for of specious logic. Using people instead of machines.

And Columbo only works because the criminal confess for no logical reason.

Re:Israeli Airport Security folks are professional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34286682)

The key difference is that Israeli security looks for terrorists, whereas American security looks for weapons*. If the security is done by the lowest paid employees that can only look at red vs green lights, it's never going to work.

* I'm quoting someone who deserves credit, but don't remember whom.

Re:Israeli Airport Security folks are professional (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286684)

hey all state that the Israeli security folks are really detectives, who are very intelligent, ask misleading questions and evaluate the responses. All very "human / personal based." They all felt safe when entering the plane.

Every time I've been to Israel, these 'detectives' have spent a long time searching all my stuff. Since I was doing nothing wrong, clearly their Secret Detective Sense isn't working too good.

Needless to say, I have no desire ever to go back there, and I'm guessing the blonde German girl who was in the aisle alongside me last time crying her eyes out after her 'interview' won't be either.

Re:Israeli Airport Security folks are professional (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286702)

I'd rather Inspector Columbo also have scanning technology.

I'm smart enough to pass casual interrogation, there are MANY other people smarter than I, and that makes for a security hole.

I'm totally for the Full Pat Down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34286534)

As a TSA employee its the only time I get to touch breasts.

Michael Chertoff needs to be investigated (4, Insightful)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286550)

look him up. He has abused and manipulated his relationships with Homeland Security to try and make billions for him and his friends with the naked scanners. Part of the groping is to try and force people to use the scanners so they can sell more of them. Chertoff and Rapiscan Systems need to be indicted.

Re:Michael Chertoff needs to be investigated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34286704)

Chertoff and Rapiscan Systems need to be indicted.

...for treason, and executed upon conviction, to send a message to these fuckwads once and for all

No special treatment (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34286574)

I find it refreshing that famous people aren't treated any differently than us common folk, and I find it amusing that they try to use their influence against the public's best interests.

More security fees (1)

Blinkin1200 (917437) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286594)

I just saw a headline that they may be increasing the security fees. How high do the fees need to go before the TSA can be charged with prostitution for giving me that oh so thorough massage?

Searches are a net loss (5, Interesting)

redelm (54142) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286600)

The TSA searches are causing greater loss of useable lifetime than terrorists ever could. Each year, about 800 million people have to arrive one hour earlier at the airport to wait in lines and now suffer increased humiliation. Human beings only live for 700,000 hours. The TSA is wasting over 1000 lifetimes each year.

Would I get in trouble? (1)

MrQuacker (1938262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286604)

I need to fly out west later this year. Would I get in any kind of trouble if I just showed up in a speedo and flip flops?

Amusingly even Charles Krauthammer (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286608)

Amusingly, even Charles Krauthammer has written a column in the Washington Post about how it's a waste of time.

Probably because he's stuck in a wheelchair and nobody likes him.

Only one expert (1)

Yo,dog! (1819436) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286642)

I guess in the spirit of getting the public all jacked up over this, "anonymous reader" failed to notice that the linked article describes a single Israeli expert, not experts.

How is the TSA invasive? (0, Troll)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286648)

Honestly, I'm not sure why this is such a big deal -- it's as if we (Americans) think we have a God-given right to fly. Yet in everyday life, we must give up certain liberties; when I'm driving on public roads, I don't have the right to slam my foot to the floor and keep it there. But that's OK, because I voluntarily put myself in a car, on a public road.

In a similar fashion, I honestly don't mind a full-body scan (or whatever) at the airport, so long as I'm informed of this prior to buying my ticket. I see no reason why it's a violation of my rights, in the same way that I don't feel it's a violation of my rights to show a librarian the contents of my backpack when exiting the library. Knowingly putting yourself in a situation where your "normal" liberties must be compromised is your choice. You're welcome to take a bus, train, car or boat to your destination instead.

Racial profiling, on the other hand, is a completely different matter, IMHO.

Re:How is the TSA invasive? (1)

danbeck (5706) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286732)

You see no reason why it violates your constitutional rights because you are uninformed and a fool. You would willingly subject anyone; women, children, the elderly and disabled to evasive and humiliating treatment as long as they weren't brown or black because it makes you "feel" safer. You waste the oxygen you breath.

I don't like Ron Paul for a lot of reasons (5, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286654)

but I don't let my dislike for him cloud my judgement of his individual ideas.

This is a good one; even though his wording in trollish and flamebait worthy.

So Paul's not a complete dickwad (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286686)

Still don't like him. Hardcore libertarianism has its perks over neoconservatism when it comes to individual rights (as seen here), but he's also against any form of social care not provided by corporations. Being dominated by rich guys sucks regardless of whether they're private stockholders or politicians.

("Unemployed? Sucks to be you, doesn't it?")

"Unsafe" (-1, Troll)

Peach Rings (1782482) | more than 3 years ago | (#34286718)

Why is nobody jumping on that part of the summary? This is typical homeopathic chi bullcrap, like the people complaining of headaches from the nearby (unbeknownst to them long inactive) cell tower that was featured on slashdot awhile ago, and the people who are afraid to hold phones near their heads because they never took freshman level physics.

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...