Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Baby's First TSA Patdown

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the I-feel-safer-already dept.

Security 570

theodp writes "Is there anything cuter than baby milestones? Baby's first steps. Baby's first word. And now, baby's first TSA patdown. 'Well,' writes Anna North, 'it finally happened. Airport security officers gave a pat-down to a baby.' A post on the TSA blog defended the move: 'The child's stroller alarmed during explosives screening. Our officers followed proper current screening procedures by screening the family after the alarm...The [8-month-old] child in the photo was simply receiving a modified pat-down.' Hey, at least they didn't make a federal case of the 4 oz. of liquid found in the little tyke's Pampers."

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

Pedophiles! (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117938)

Here's some nice TSA porn [news.com.au] for all you regular folks.. Now get back to work!

Airport security... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36117986)

...is an embarrassment to America.

We really could be better than this.

Re:Airport security... (2)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118458)

We really could be better than this

I honestly can't decide whether or not I think that's true.

Re:Pedophiles! (2)

pcolaman (1208838) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118524)

One of many reasons I would much rather travel by car/bus/train than airplane.

Re:Pedophiles! (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118532)

Regarding your subject, I couldn't help but notice a rather scummy looking woman shouting "PEDOPHILE, PEDOPHILE!" at a security guard in the supermarket the other day as she quickly strolled out the door. I'm guessing one of the staff noticed her putting stuff into her pram and the guard was trying to search it on her way out.. I felt kinda sorry for the guy, not sure what the correct response should be in a situation like that.

Osama Bin Laden (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36117954)

Osama Bin Laden is laughing in his grave. He obviously won, even in death.

Re:Osama Bin Laden (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36118162)

Osama Bin Laden is laughing in his grave. He obviously won, even in death.

Osama Bin Laden is laughing in his grave. [yourfunnystuff.com] He obviously won, even in death.

Fixed that for you.

He even gave an interview on CNN [cnn.com] and said "I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed", and we still did exactly as he predicted. We won the battle ten days ago, but lost the war ten years ago.

Maybe I'm just an oldthinker who unbellyfeels newspeak, but "Homeland of the fee, homeland of the safe" still doesn't sound right. Can we please have pre-9/11 America back? You know, land of the free, home of the brave?

Re:Osama Bin Laden (5, Insightful)

snarkh (118018) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118310)

The economic damage he caused to the US economy is several trillion dollars. While he may not have won the war, but he did cause overwhelming damage.

Re:Osama Bin Laden (1)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118510)

I'm pretty sure Osama did win. And big.

Re:Osama Bin Laden (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36118320)

Yup, he exploited us and we're just making it worse. The act of terrorism was as much was social engineering.

2 questions for the TSA (4, Insightful)

sootman (158191) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117968)

1) Nationwide, how many times has the alarm gone off during explosives screening?

2) How many times have explosives been found?

Re:2 questions for the TSA (5, Informative)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118000)

>2) How many times have explosives been found?

None. Ever. Even the underpants bomber made it through.

Since the inception of the TSA, they have stopped *zero* hijacking/bombing attempts from the airport.

Biggest waste of money on security theater going.

--
BMO

Re:2 questions for the TSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36118084)

Remember - TSA is there to act as a deterrant as well. Even if they haven't stopped any hijacking/bombing attempts they may have deterred some. However, that's not to say that I agree with the extreme levels that TSA takes.

Re:2 questions for the TSA (1)

Local ID10T (790134) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118176)

Remember - TSA is there to act as a deterrant as well.

Mission accomplished. I have been deterred from flying.

Re:2 questions for the TSA (3, Interesting)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118542)

Mission accomplished. I have been deterred from flying.

I've got a big Disney fan in the household. We used to make at least one vacation stop at Disney World each year. This year, we've canceled our initial plans. A big part of that is not wishing to go through Security Theatre.

I understand that big tourism like Disney theme parks are struggling with disappointing numbers in current times. What a pity they have additional pinch points further restricting income flow.

Re:2 questions for the TSA (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36118442)

Why would it be a deterrant?

You've got a guy willing to blow himself up. If he gets through TSA, he blows himself and the plain up. If TSA catches him.. well, he doesn't get to blow the plane up. Maybe he just blows the security line up, or maybe he gets stopped before he can trigger the bomb. If he gets stopped, maybe he can rat out a couple of accomplices under "interrogation". It's not like building a bomb is such a HUGE expense that the THREAT of a failed attempt would make people give up.

Re:2 questions for the TSA (5, Informative)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118470)

You know what deters hijackers now?

The fact that the passengers will beat him to a bloody pulp.

That's what stopped the shoe bomber. That's what stopped the underpants bomber. It sure as fuck wasn't the fucking TSA.

Old rules are gone. "Sit tight and this will all be over and everyone will go home" doesn't exist anymore. Not since 9/11. Now it's "beat the piss out of him and sit on the bastard until we land" as exemplified by the last incident where a passenger went nuts this past week, tried to open the door (lol!) and the passengers beat the piss out of him.

TSA is underpants-on-head useless.

--
BMO

Re:2 questions for the TSA (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118144)

But they stopped over a thousand terrorist attempts from even considering going through their heightened security measures. Plus, the theater is just that, theater. The real security improvements are secret and invisible.

Re:2 questions for the TSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36118188)

Or, at least, that's the story until we realize that those 'secret and invisible' measures missed underwear bomber. I don't have much respect or encouragement to give any part of TSA.

Re:2 questions for the TSA (5, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118226)

The Israelis haven't had a hijacking in decades, and they don't use full-body scans or anything of the kind. I listened a few months ago to an Israeli security expert who was literally scoffing at the TSA's methods, and stating what they need, rather than $10 an hour rent-a-cop types, they needed to pay some behavioural experts who can recognize potential threats. Trying to up the ante with technology is just a shell game, and as we've seen, doesn't seem to do a great deal if someone seems dedicated to blowing up an air plane.

Re:2 questions for the TSA (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118490)

The Israeli system can't scale to our needs. It definitely works but it is significantly labor intensive. They actually talk to each and every passenger.

Re:2 questions for the TSA (4, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118352)

Exactly, that's the same way that I know that this rock that I have bought keeps away tigers!

More seriously, lets say that your screening procedures are 99% effective with a 0.0001% false positive rate, both of which are horribly, massively unrealistic. And then let's pretend that there are 10 terrorists that try to get on an airplane each year in the US, which is almost definitely an unrealistically high number. There are an estimated 737.4 million passenger flights each year in the US. That means that for each terrorist detected you're going to hit 8200 false positives. Screening everyone in the country just doesn't work at a mathematical level.

Re:2 questions for the TSA (3, Interesting)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118150)

>2) How many times have explosives been found?

None. Ever. Even the underpants bomber made it through.

Since the inception of the TSA, they have stopped *zero* hijacking/bombing attempts from the airport.

Biggest waste of money on security theater going.

--
BMO

The parent should be modded to 5, and all Slashdot readers should be sure to spread this point as much as possible to everyone they know. The TSA has an $8.1 annual billion budget and has yet to have a single success.

We can't comment definitively on the deterrent effect mentioned by an AC reply, though our very limited data points make deterrence seem unlikely, given that 1) every attempted bomber in the last 10 years has successfully made it through security and 2) the 100% failure rate probably doesn't put much fear into the hearts of potential attackers.

Re:2 questions for the TSA (5, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118216)

...has yet to have a single success.

HA! Tell that to the people who sell all those nice machines.. They're laughing all the way to the bank..

Re:2 questions for the TSA (1)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118486)

not so fast, do realize how much shampoo they have stopped from making it on to airplanes. that shit really stings if you get it in your eye.

Re:2 questions for the TSA (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36118276)

>2) How many times have explosives been found?

None. Ever. Even the underpants bomber made it through.

I didn't realize American TSA agents work in Amsterdam. The Detroit TSA probably couldn't have stopped him considering he was on his way to Detroit from Europe. I don't know, I'm not a security expert but I don't think US supplies TSA agents across the globe.

Re:2 questions for the TSA (1)

zill (1690130) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118540)

I don't know, I'm not a security expert but I don't think US supplies TSA agents across the globe.

If an Anonymous Coward on the Internet knows about this gaping security hole, then I'm guessing the terrorists probably figured it out too.

Re:2 questions for the TSA (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118044)

I'm in favor of them taking all basic and non-intrusive steps to detect explosives.

It's fallacious to say "they haven't found any in the screening process so there aren't any". It excludes the middle in that if they weren't checking for explosives, it'd be easy to get them through, and then terrorists would be doing it. But as it stands now, they know baggage is screened so they have to find another way.

The trouble with these pat downs is that they can't reasonably detect any more by groping your balls than they can with scanners and wands. I don't have a problem with the old-style scanners or the wands if you set the metal detector off.

I think the Homeland Security department which was a little crazy before has gone absolutely over the falls with Obama/Napolitano, but voters are going to let them off the hook for this because they like the other guys less. That does not fix anything.

Re:2 questions for the TSA (1)

eam (192101) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118180)

I don't think the parent was saying there aren't any. Just that the TSA security theater isn't finding them.

Re:2 questions for the TSA (4, Insightful)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118454)

If there were terrorists with the will and capability to bomb a plane, but who were put off purely by the probability of being caught by the TSA, don't you think the would've attacked one of the many, many other totally unguarded areas of our infrastructure? Airliners are big, flashy, somewhat fragile targets, but I don't understand how so many people seem to have decided that they're the only targets.

If someone was willing to blow themselves to pieces for a cause, but couldn't because of the TSA (something I find unlikely to begin with), it's mind-boggling to claim that they'll just sit back, accept it, and become a productive member of society. If anything, it would create a lot more panic to show that we're at risk everywhere, from the subway to the supermarket to the airline security queue. If terrorism were actually an appreciable threat within the US, we'd see some evidence of it. The TSA are fighting an enemy that is vastly few and far between, and even so they're doing a terrible job of it while encroaching horribly on our civil liberties; terrorism just isn't the threat that people make it out to be.

Re:2 questions for the TSA (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118562)

the problem is none of what they are doing would prevent 9/11...which is the justification for all this crap. 9/11 wasn't a 'bomb' it was a hijacking. We solved that problem with reinforced cockpit doors.

Bombs were in existence before 9/11 but we didn't seem to care about them - because they are rare, and very limited in their effect. Blowing up a plane != using it as a flying missile.

Re:2 questions for the TSA (5, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118386)

George Carlin said it best, long before 9/11:

I’m getting tired of all this security at the airport. There’s too much of it. I’m tired of some fat chick with a double-digit IQ and a triple-digit income rootin’ around inside of my bag for no reason and never finding anything. Haven’t found anything yet. Haven’t found one bomb in one bag. And don’t tell me, “Well, the terrorists know their bags are going to be searched, so now they’re leaving their bombs at home.” There are no bombs! The whole thing is fuckin’ pointless.

And it’s completely without logic. There’s no logic at all. They’ll take away a gun, but let you keep a knife! (editor note: Not anymore) Well, what the fuck is that? In fact, there’s a whole list of lethal objects they will allow you to take on board. Theoretically, you could take a knife, an ice pick, a hatchet, a straight razor, a pair of scissors, a chain saw, six knitting needles, and a broken whiskey bottle, and the only thing they’d say to you is, “That bag has to fit all the way under the seat in front of you.”

And if you didn’t take a weapon on board, relax. After you’ve been flying for about an hour, they’re gonna bring you a knife and fork! They actually give you a fucking knife! It’s only a table knife, but you could kill a pilot with a table knife. If might take you a couple of minutes. Especially if he’s hefty. But you could get the job done. If you really wanted to kill the prick.

Shit, there are a lot of things you could use to kill a guy with. You could probably beat a guy to death with the Sunday New York Times. Or suppose you just had really big hands, couldn’t you strangle a flight attendant? Shit, you could probably strangle two of them, one with each hand. That is, if you were lucky enough to catch ‘em in that little kitchen area. Just before they break out the fuckin’ peanuts. But you could get the job done. If you really cared enough.

Re:2 questions for the TSA (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118552)

Precisely. The threat just isn't significant - if it were, we'd see evidence. As for the comment about knives, you may not be able to bring them any more, but the broken glass possibility more than makes up for it; it's theatre, plain and simple.

Re:2 questions for the TSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36118414)

I am still able to sneak drugs through security. Accidentally took a knife that was never discovered

Meanwhile in line... (1, Flamebait)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118006)

A Muslim with an obvious middle eastern accent was waved on through because the random checks didn't single him out and because it would be politically incorrect to flag Muslims for extra screening.

Re:Meanwhile in line... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36118054)

This obviously has nothing to do with anyone's safety. This is about obedience and conditioning. One by one, all those predictions that the conspiracy nuts rattled off (and most rational people dismissed) are coming true. If the trend continues, the dollar will be destroyed and replaced with a multi-national currency, and there will be another push for Real ID.

Re:Meanwhile in line... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36118074)

you, sir, are a moron.

Re:Meanwhile in line... (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118390)

You think that patting down a random person who doesn't even come close to fitting the profile of a modern terrorists, while completely ignoring the guy behind her who does is a smart way to approach screening, do you? Because us morons think that taking a more focused approach might be in order. Profiling works to catch serial killers, so why not use it to screen for terrorists too?

Re:Meanwhile in line... (1, Interesting)

rjstanford (69735) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118462)

Show me a profile of a modern terrorist that would have caught Timothy McVeigh, arguably one of the most lethal domestic terrorists ever. Just remember, he was white, had some college, got an honorable military discharge, Christian...

Re:Meanwhile in line... (1, Insightful)

228e2 (934443) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118076)

Problem?

Contrary to public outcry, American terrorist are more likely to be Caucasian males than any other race.

Re:Meanwhile in line... (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118126)

How many Caucasians have we had hijack airplanes in the last 20 or 30 years?

Re:Meanwhile in line... (1)

228e2 (934443) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118220)

Since when is hijacking an airplane the only form of terrorism?

Re:Meanwhile in line... (2)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118376)

So by that logic, pat down brown people at the airport, and pat down white people near abortion clinics?

Re:Meanwhile in line... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36118378)

honkies don't fly planes, they use box trucks to blow people up.

Re:Meanwhile in line... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36118148)

Contrary to public outcry, American terrorist

Selection bias. Terrorists are less likely to be Americans.

American terrorists are likely to be caucasian. Irish terrorists are likely to be scotsmen. News at 11.

Meanwhile, terrorists in general are quite likely to be both Muslim and of Arab descent.

Re:Meanwhile in line... (1)

228e2 (934443) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118256)

Its not selection bias. Its numbers.

School shootings, bomb threats, mail and building bombs . . . these are all terrorism activities. Which are carried out by people non-Muslim or Arab descent.


But you already knew that . . . .

Re:Meanwhile in line... (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118232)

Have you seen a lot of white Christian suicide bombers and terrorists lately? Because aside from Tim McVeigh and a few nutbags bombing abortion clinics, I haven't seen many of them in the last 20 years. Even the IRA put its C-4 away a long time ago.

Methinks the fact that pretty much every suicide bomber and terrorist these days is a Muslim *might* just suggest a pattern. But then, granted, I'm no Batman-level detective or anything.

Re:Meanwhile in line... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36118290)

So if we accept that terrorists are usual Muslim, then we can conclude that Muslims are usually ... oh right, not terrorists.

Re:Meanwhile in line... (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118466)

No, genius. Most Muslims are not terrorists. But most terrorists *are* Muslim. Given those two facts, if you're trying to catch a terrorist, who do you look for? Do you just randomly flail around pretending there is equally as much chance that the Greek Orthodox priest standing in line is a terrorist as the Saudi Muslim standing beside him?

Re:Meanwhile in line... (1)

muridae (966931) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118506)

Using that same logic, we just say that aside from a few nutbag flight-school drop-outs, all the terrorists have been christian. Or that aside from a few religious nutbags, all of the terrorists have been athiests.

Re:Meanwhile in line... (1)

228e2 (934443) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118522)

Yes.
I recall there was a hostage situation right outside of dc in a bank or something like that. I only heard about that because I live 10 miles from where it happened and all my coworkers were talking about it.

Ofcourse I could go on all day listing hostage situations, school shootings, racial violence, but none of these has the sex appeal of 9/11 . . . .

Re:Meanwhile in line... (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118574)

Even the IRA put its C-4 away a long time ago.

By some accounts the IRA quit after 9/11, when American donors suddenly decided that terrorism wasn't cool.

Methinks the fact that pretty much every suicide bomber and terrorist these days is a Muslim *might* just suggest a pattern.

There's a shocking amount of stuff going on in the USA these days, especially since the last election. Fortunately law enforcement has busted most of it up before it bears fruit. (E.g., the plan to murder a couple of cops and then kill everyone at the funeral.)

Unfortunately our "liberal" media portrays it as an endless series of isolated incidents - when they mention it at all.

Oh, and these aren't the acts and conspiracies of Muslims, either.

Re:Meanwhile in line... (1)

cyberchondriac (456626) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118554)

American terrorists, as in domestic American citizens, I suppose..but I don't think that's the group or ethnicity that the TSA should be most concerned with, based on recent history.
The overwhelming majority of airline related terrorist attempts in the past 10 years -if not all- have been from Islamic extremists with an arabic or similar ethnicity and name, and who don't need to be American citizens to board domestic flights. Further, while many Islamic-based terrorists show no reluctance to use children or women (though not babies) in their attacks, we haven't seen that from homegrown caucasian militant/terrorists such as McVeigh. The 19 hijackers of 9-11 all had arabic or similar ethnicity and names, as did the shoe-bomber, and the underwear bomber sure wasn't caucasian.

This is all about political correctness, and apparently the TSA would rather get us blown up than "offend" someone. When political ideology trumps common sense, we're in trouble.
Note that I am not saying that all Muslims are terrorists, that'd be idiotic; but that the terrorists who try to blow up planes are generally (radical) Muslims. One is a super-set, the other a subset. We're concerned with that subset. Logically, when you search for something, you use the process of elimination, among other tools. Removing the logical process of elimination via "randomizing" searches is illogical.

Re:Meanwhile in line... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36118152)

That's ok. The pilots will probably kick the Muslim off the plane before takeoff anyway. No flying Muslims, no terrorism! Yay!

Re:Meanwhile in line... (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118246)

Which everyone was pleased about because the Muslim, like millions of others, was simply travelling on business and like most people would be shocked at the idea that he might commit an act of terrorism.

Re:Meanwhile in line... (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118280)

The 9-11 hijackers, the shoe bomber, the diaper bomber, etc. were all innocent when they boarded too.

Re:Meanwhile in line... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36118416)

!?

well if weird logic is the way to go... i believe the saying goes innocent till proven guilty. by that eveyone in Gitmo is innocent (which may well be true).

using more ratinal thinking, correct me if i'm wrong, i'm often confused by americas arms laws, but aren't carrying live explosives illegal? conspicy to murder ring any bells?

i'm sorry

you, sir, are still a moron

Re:Meanwhile in line... (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118426)

How many crimes can we lay at your feet because we can arbitrarily label you as not one of us?

Meanwhile in line... (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118268)

... the kilogram of home-brew RDX in my backpack, surrounded by another kilogram of small iron nails oriented outwards and dripped in anticoagulant rat poison, explodes, peppering the meters-long queue and anyone nearby with poisoned shrapnel, ensuring that many victims bleed to death before the medics can get to them.
Good Job, TSA!

Sure, I'll die, but I'm going to take at least a hundred more people with me if I time the blast right. Nobody would pick me out beforehand, because I'm not through the security checkpoint yet, so it's basically risk-free. And I'd die if I bombed the airplane anyway, the queue at the checkpoint just makes for a cheaper and less risky target.

Re:Meanwhile in line... (2)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118362)

Not to mention if you do it near the naked-body-scanners you'll damage something worth a few million dollars.

Re:Meanwhile in line... (1)

random coward (527722) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118484)

Of course, if we assume the TSA is trying to protect people then it would be a TSA failure. When you realize they don't give a rats ass about people but just want to protect airplanes then you realize what a success they are even in your case/scenario.

Mistreatment of a child! (0)

Dr.Bob,DC (2076168) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118016)


That's quite rough!

I wouldn't be surprised if the child develops vertebral subluxations or nerve issues from that kind of abuse.
The parents should keep that on video so they can sue TSA for their child's future chiropractic care.

Re:Mistreatment of a child! (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118236)

Are you saying that a chiropractor is any less fraudulent than the TSA?

Re:Mistreatment of a child! (0, Troll)

Dr.Bob,DC (2076168) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118412)


I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Chiropractic has helped cure countless people of terrible diseases caused by nerve blockages and subluxations since the 1800's. On the contrary, TSA is a costly, bogus scam.

Re:Mistreatment of a child! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36118318)

Anyone who takes a child to a chiro should lose their kids for putting them through abusive and unnecessary quackery.

Papiere bitte. (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118022)

That's the kind of society we are headed towards. (Some would say we are already there, with naked body scanners, sexual assault patdowns and random stops/searches along highways.)

"Papers please.
"Or jail.
"Choose citizen."

Re:Papiere bitte. (5, Insightful)

sauge (930823) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118210)

Or checkpoints against drunk driving
Police cameras on the roads
"Zero Tolerance" in schools
Drug testing
ID requirements for just about anything, including purchasing cough syrup

When was the last time one heard "Go ahead, it's a free country!"

-----
Would George Washington taken his boots off?

Ignorance nor indifference is no excuse (1)

Joviex (976416) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118374)

A charge to freedom should not include wreckless behavior that endangers all those who enjoy said freedom. A douchebag drunk on the road is already on the road. They made a choice to endanger others. Police cameras on the road are not cameras in your house, and what would you have the police do? Go back to hoping someone in society helps identfy people for them because of their limited resources? Drug testing where? Private buisnesses or schools or what? ID requirements for drugs, what is the problem? If you can buy the drugs, you most likely have ID.

This is out of control (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36118028)

This needs to stop now.

Re:This is out of control (1)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118396)

At least they didn't put the baby through the scanner...

THINK OF THE CHILDREN (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36118064)

Won't someone please think of the children? We need to protect them from the TSA!

Guess That's What Happens When... (2)

wbav (223901) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118068)

You put security theater together with stupid people.

The TSA people really believe they are keeping everyone safe while creating targets for terrorists to attack.

Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be getting better.

While we're at it... (3, Funny)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118122)

I think we should be able to request a woman do our patdowns instead of a man.

The idea of some mustachioed 50 year old man grabbing my balls is a lot more offensive to me than a woman doing it.

Re:While we're at it... (5, Funny)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118398)

Careful what you wish for, you will get a 50 year old mustachioed woman grabbing your balls... and she hates men.

privacy (4, Insightful)

PktLoss (647983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118138)

The thing that bothers me most about the TSA responding to issues is the privacy of the people going through screening. I feel like the entire process should be treated as confidential, the number of people in the party, wether or not they had a stroller, what set off what alarm, how old the child was, etc. I don't feel like the TSA should be sharing that information publicly.

Re:privacy (1)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118564)

Well, they didn't comment on this until it became public. As much as I dislike the TSA, at this point they ought to have the right to respond.

Also personally I'd much prefer the process to be in public. As soon as you introduce "privacy" into that, you'll find yourself shielded from sight, in some cubicle - just you and 2-3 TSA agents. No thanks, I'd rather the other passengers would watch - I trust them more then the TSA.

The kids loaded (1)

mprindle (198799) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118184)

I'd be willing to bet the "explosive" they detected coming from the kid was the load that was left in his diaper. When kids explode is really messy!

*sigh* (4, Insightful)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118192)

Yes a terrorist can hide a bomb in a baby. A terrorist can also surgically insert a bomb into a baby if they wanted to.

They could also just detonate the bomb at the airport itself (remember russia?) and skip all of this.

All this stupid theatre does absolutely nothing, except give the 'terrorists' (and the general population) a little grope before they get blown up. Wouldn't want them to die unhappy would we?

Apply Standards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36118196)

Why not just treat everyone equally, search everyone.
If you don't pat down or search children then people would start using children more frequently as drug mules, because they know the children are not going to be searched.
As the article noted it was the explosive screening. It doesn't matter that it was a false positive. Better safe than sorry.
Do some better parenting, let the child know that they have done nothing wrong and show them by being searched first, joke about it with them, put on a happy face. Children often emulate their parents/guardians.

Its just the price you pay for the convenience of flying vs driving.

the whiners are gonna whine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36118348)

When that happens people still whine about it.

Re:Apply Standards (1)

Samalie (1016193) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118530)

"Convenience of flying"?

Are you fucking kidding me?!?

Lets see...if I want to go home and visit my parents, I can either:

(a) Pay $600 round-trip. Have to take a cab to the airport ($40) or park my car there for a week ($35). Rent a vehicle at my destination ($150). I have to arrive at the airport an hour and a half in front of my flight (minimum), which requires me to leave home 30 minutes before that. I realistically have around a 50-50 of being put through "secondary screening" and either pictured semi-naked or groped (that has been my average over around 50 flights). I then can take my 2 1/2 hour flight, wait 30 minutes at my destination airport for my baggage to show up, take the shuttle to the rental car facility (20 minutes), go through the counter (20-30 minutes) and finally be on my way. Then the reverse of it all basically coming home, except the rental car location is only around 5 minutes.

Total: Minimum $785 and around 10 hours of my life.

(b) Pay $325 round-trip by car. Total travel time: 25 hours. I don't have to worry about what I pack, if I have a bottle of water or liquid medications, or any of the other bullshit. I'm travelling on comfort, with a 0% chance of being fondled without probable cause.

So I save 15 hours of my life flying, which costs me ~$460 more than driving, and with a likelyhood of getting fondled against my 4th Ammendment Rights at least one direction.

Yeah...REAL fucking convenient.

hmm (-1, Troll)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118200)

Personally I think the argument can be made that the loudest protestors against the TSA are overly neurotic and likely sexually repressed. So a TSA touched you, big deal. What are you, a Victorian schoolmarm, any physical contact is a crime against humanity?

Re:hmm (2)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118394)

Well they didn't call me in the morning.

Re:hmm (1)

berashith (222128) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118520)

hell, they didnt even walk me to the door!

Re:hmm (1)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118436)

the flip side is, we aren't dogs... I dont have to smell your asshole to determine if you are a threat.

We are not alone (3, Insightful)

poptones (653660) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118202)

Does France have such patdowns in their airports? What about Canada? What about Germany? Belgium? China? Japan?

Why is it we also have not heard of ANY foreign terrorist activities on airliners since all this started? Are the american airport patdowns such a deterrent they can stop a "potential terrorist" from boarding a plane in S Africa with a bomb or a knife?

This needs to stop. I really don't care personally, because I don't fly - but all the other people being displaced from the planes are filling up the trains, and I miss the extra elbow room.

Re:We are not alone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36118478)

Yes. I got to experience a rather personal moment with a french security screener in Charles De Gaulle's international terminal.

honor among terrorists (1)

hort_wort (1401963) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118238)

I'd just like to point out that a terrorist draws the line as using children to blow things up. No one would *ever* think to sacrifice a child for their religious views. They should obviously be allowed to pass through any security points without any problems!

Violation of Human Rights (1)

applematt84 (1135009) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118272)

Seriously ... a pat down of a baby? TSA has gone too far if they are going to give infants (children are probably next) pat downs that can't even speak for themselves. Someone has to put a stop to the overzealous security czar that's known as TSA. If that had been my child, I would have been extremely outraged.

Re:Violation of Human Rights (2)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118526)

It isn't any more outrageous just because it is a baby.

Do you really think someone with the will and desire to kill a few hundred or thousand other humans would be reluctant to use a child to accomplish that goal?

(I'm not supporting the pat downs in general, just pointing out that there is nothing less risky about children; and most of them do have a guardian to speak for them, hopefully TSA procedure would have allowed the family to walk away rather than have the baby inspected)

some babys to survive unending passover holycost (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36118304)

due to identified advanced dna features. the majority of them, & us, have not been chosen, even though, or because, there's billions of us. disarm. weapons, media etc.. read the teepeeleaks etchings, please. thank you.

idle? (3, Insightful)

locallyunscene (1000523) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118344)

Why is this idle? We only idly wonder at controversial and arguably ineffective security procedures being followed to the letter? Especially when "I was just following orders" are the dirtiest words a lackey can speak?

Texas vs. TSA (5, Informative)

Picass0 (147474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118402)

Texas has had enough. Other states will soon follow. On top of states rights, there are individual airports excercising their "opt-out" privileges and replacing TSA with private security.

This morning CBS in Dallas/Fort Worth reports:

"The Texas House passed a bill that would make it a criminal offense for public servants to inappropriately touch travelers during airport security pat-downs.

Approved late Thursday night, the measure makes it illegal for anyone conducting searches to touch “the anus, sexual organ, buttocks, or breast of another person” including through clothing."
Source:http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/05/13/texas-house-bans-offensive-security-pat-downs/

If TSA ignores the new Texas law Texas has grounds to go to the US Supreme Court and challenge TSA's authority.

In the US the babies are merely felt up.. (0)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118448)

while overseas the 'coalition' hellfire rains down upon them. I suppose the Americans should be grateful..

toddler's first pat down, November 2001 (5, Interesting)

awilden (110846) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118464)

In November 2001 we were traveling and didn't realize that our return flight had been canceled. We were able to rebook but of course that gave us a XXX rating for risk (though we didn't understand that until later). But our 13 month old (and the rest of us) had to go through three different screens between the ticket counter and the gate, the last of which was a full pat down for all of us.
First I was screened, then our baby was made to stand away from both of us (since he wasn't screened and they were screening my wife) while my wife was being screened. This step took a long time, because of course the kid was screaming bloody murder about being kept from his parents, and several times he broke free and ran to his mother and if she moved (not reached, just moved out of her crucifixion position) or the kid touched her, the agent yelled at her and started over again. After about the third time when she got yelled at w/o moving, I was about ready to punch somebody but the supervisor intervened, patted down the baby and got him into my arms, at which point they could finish the stupid screen on my wife. This was the closest by far I've ever come to physical violence in my adult life. And it wasn't caused by a false-positive on an explosives test, it was because our flight was canceled.

If you didn't pat down everybody... (0)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118480)

Then you'd set a nice example of how to beat the system. Some terrorist could bring their/a baby on a flight and hide a bomb in their stroller/diaper etc..

If the TSA posted a list of "We will search/pat down all people except for the following people/items." This would provide a nice list to those looking to do harm/hijack the plane etc.. for what they can do to get past security.

I know I know... someone will say this will cause irreparable harm to the child. Well, when I took my child to get their measels/mumps/rubella shots, that was a lot more "traumatic" (resulting in lots of crying), but prevents not only my child from getting sick but many others.

Re:If you didn't pat down everybody... (0)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118556)

Then you'd set a nice example of how to beat the system. Some terrorist could bring their/a baby on a flight and hide a bomb in their stroller/diaper etc..

very true we know that the Muzzies want their children to become martyrs [palwatch.org] , in that perverse religion there is no better way to bring the whole family to heaven.

Terrorists are not the biggest threat (5, Insightful)

devent (1627873) | more than 3 years ago | (#36118512)

"Terrorists could hide a bomb in a diaper, and we don't seem to have anything much better than pat-downs to detect it. "

Terrorists could just go to the next mall in kill 1000 people with a bomb. Or they could go to a train station and kill 500 people. They could just go to the next restaurant and kill 50 people.

What we really should be doing is just accept terrorists as a threat but not overreacting. We should spend our tax money for real things that are proven to save lives, like improving highways, get more police officers, improving hospitals and health care, invest in more public transportation.

We could even just give capital to the third-world countries, or invest in their education and infrastructure. Even that would reduce the risk of a terrorist attack way more then the stupid TSA. But instead we giving Millions of money to people to search babies, kids and some random people so we have a one in a million chance to find anything.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?