×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

241 comments

This could hurt other industries (1)

RogueRat (1710322) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143306)

I wonder how many porn sites this will prevent? /tasteless joke

Re:This could hurt other industries (0)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143630)

He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

Excellent (5, Insightful)

Igorod (807462) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143328)

I'm contacting my representatives offices tonight to ask that they support this. If you can't beat them with logic and reason, beat them with funding.

Re:Excellent (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36143636)

Interesting that TFS doesn't mention that the republicans (the press release is right-wing propoganda) are denying the scanner budget that the president requested. I'm regretting my vote a little more.

Re:Excellent (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36143804)

left-wing right-wing they both place us for fools

Re:Excellent (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36144274)

Blame the tea party "republicans." The GOP is really wishing they had done their homework before courting the tea party. The libertarian agitators in the tea party really wanted those scanners to gtfo yesterday. The mainstream GOP's response to this anti-big-government push is to start grooming Trump for 2012.

I promise you one thing, this election cycle shall be incredibly entertaining.

Re:Excellent (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 2 years ago | (#36144452)

Except Trump already said no to a run.

So did Huckabee, so it'll be Ron Paul or Palin for the tea bag candidate, Romney for the mainstream to get beaten by Obama in '12

Re:Excellent (1)

halivar (535827) | more than 2 years ago | (#36144594)

Except Ron Paul has gone full-bore against the Bin Laden assassination. He won't get a single tea-party vote in the primary. He'll get the last few 9/11 truther's in the GOP and the Stormfront vote, and that's it.

Re:Excellent (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#36144600)

Palin?
So the blind leading the blind?

I can't understand why anyone would vote for that moron. On the other hand I cringed that people voted for W because they felt they could have a drink with him. I thought we were looking for presidents not drinking buddies or frat bros.

Re:Excellent (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36143694)

I'm sure that what's left of Al Qaeda's leadership is contacting their local suicide bomb factory.

When the airplanes start falling from the sky I'm sure that $80 million we saved will seem a bit shortsighted, but that's what America is all about.

Re:Excellent (1)

frosty_tsm (933163) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143724)

Your head must be stuck in sand if you think this is about money.

Re:Excellent (1)

Caradoc (15903) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143936)

I was thinking that their head must be stuck in the sand if they think that the TSA has had the slightest effect on actual terrorist activities.

Re:Excellent (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36143838)

Right, because full body scanners will stop someone from doing that. Any idiot with a computer knows exactly where the scanners are installed and exactly how much detail they can detect. Do you really expect someone to be caught by surprise by a full body scanner and therefore not shove whatever it is they are trying to hide deep enough for it not to detect?

Re:Excellent (1)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143944)

If you want to save lives, that $80 million can be used much more wisely than on scanners of dubious safety and effectiveness. Where the money is spent should be driven by data and there simply isn't any data that says terrorism is something to be worried about. Not when you compare it to the dangers of traffic and simple health problems.

Re:Excellent (4, Insightful)

Tasha26 (1613349) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143730)

Was there even an open bid process for body-scanner manufacturers or was it that one for-profit company who shoved the idea down TSA's throat and the govt was forced to go with it? I think the whole story about the current supplier is quite murky.

Re:Excellent (4, Informative)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#36144606)

There was 1 for-profit company, who just so happened to have financial ties to then-DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, who shoved the idea down the TSA's throat. These guys aren't even trying to hide the corruption anymore.

Re:Excellent (2)

corbettw (214229) | more than 2 years ago | (#36144334)

I thought it was "if you can't beat them with logic and reason, beat them with a stick"? But hey, this works, too.

Prevent the TSA? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36143356)

Why don't they do the RIGHT thing and DISMANTLE the god damn TSA?

Re:Prevent the TSA? (4, Insightful)

mungtor (306258) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143440)

Why don't they do the RIGHT thing and DISMANTLE the god damn TSA?

I'm not saying that it is, but it could be the beginning. Cutting funding is a way of stopping something when you have to save face for the people who support it. Then you can say "it was a good idea, but too expensive" and they can say "it was a good idea, but they were too cheap" and everybody walks away with their precious egos mostly intact.

Re:Prevent the TSA? (5, Informative)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#36144106)

The beginning? This is not even the end. The moment Bin Laden was killed, it was told that retaliations were to be expected and things will get worse.

Remember: this is not about fighting some enemy, this is about controlling you. If this "enemy" is gone, another will be invented.

Once communism was the worst that could happen. The war on that was won and did it bring peace? Not, just the next "enemy".

Re:Prevent the TSA? (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143490)

It would be bad for the unemployment statistics. What industry would take all those unemployables?

Re:Prevent the TSA? (3, Funny)

lpp (115405) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143654)

I hear they need bodies to fight the flooding along the Mississippi. No no... not labor... just the bodies...

Re:Prevent the TSA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36144420)

Why NASA...oh wait

Re:Prevent the TSA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36143600)

You *do* realize that *somebody* still has to pay for scanners and screening, right? Before the TSA, the security at airports was handled by contractors paid for by the airlines. Procedures were inconsistent, there were no standards, and pay was minimum wage. The TSA was created to solve all of that. It's not clear what eliminating the TSA would solve.

dom

Re:Prevent the TSA? (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143680)

It's not clear what eliminating the TSA would solve.

People might not feel that they're in an authoritarian police state whenever they have to fly somewhere?

Re:Prevent the TSA? (2)

sharkey (16670) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143736)

Well, it MAY cut back the number of sexual assaults on children in America's airports.

Re:Prevent the TSA? (2)

ep32g79 (538056) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143696)

It's not clear what eliminating the TSA would solve.

Ending Federally sanctioned sexual assault for starters.

Re:Prevent the TSA? (2)

Rolgar (556636) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143616)

This is one of the problems we have with spending in this country. Once a program is in place, it almost never gets cut, unless something even worse is put in it's place. To actually cut the TSA, you have to pass an entire bill through the House, Senate, and then get the signature of the President or an override majority from Congress.

I wish we had a provision that a simple no vote by the House of Representatives could cut bad programs. (Laws would have to be written to not only get past the current House, Senate, and President, but the future wishes of the people who have to keep paying for them.) Perhaps we could also have a citizen provision to cut these programs if Washington won't.

Re:Prevent the TSA? (5, Interesting)

Normal Dan (1053064) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143720)

I've aways felt laws, government programs and things of this sort should all have a time limit associated with them. Once they expire, they have to be debated and voted in again as if they never existed in the first place. This will also keep congress from passing too many pointless new laws, as they will be too busy maintaining the old ones.

Re:Prevent the TSA? (2)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143878)

Right. Any attempt to reduce the size or scope of the TSA will be met with PSAs showing happy families with their children at play ... and then a scene showing empty playgrounds, empty homes with foot-high grass and a line of people outside a shelter in February in Chicago. See what happens if we put these nice people out of work?

The total staff for TSA is pretty large - I'm sure it is in the tens of thousands when you add up all of the people in Washington DC, all the airports and all of the off-airport facilities. Come on, you wouldn't really want these people to be out of work and their children going hungry, would you?

That is exactly what it would take. Never going to happen.

Re:Prevent the TSA? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#36144462)

I wish we had a provision that a simple no vote by the House of Representatives could cut bad programs.

We have that. It's called a government shutdown when the House fails to pass a budget.

Re:Prevent the TSA? (2)

david_thornley (598059) | more than 2 years ago | (#36144236)

Because that would come awfully close to admitting they were wrong.

As geeks, we sometimes admit we were wrong, and try to learn better. Politicians cannot, it seems, get away with that. They at least seem to think it's vital for their continuing careers that they were never actually wrong, or else their hypertrophied egos (and you really can't hit high office without one of those) don't stand for it.

If Congress voted to cut the TSA back to what it should be (administering pre-2001 security), that would mean admitting that it wasn't necessary, which would mean it hasn't been necessary, which would mean that their party's President had engaged in empty scare-mongering (I'm being bipartisan here, as the destruction of civil liberties has been bipartisan), and that could mean losing their next election.

This means that they can't get rid of it without either having an obviously game-changing event (I've seen speculation that what the nuclear weapons did to the Japanese government was give it a way to save face while surrendering), or being able to blame it on the other party. Anything Obama does is fair game for the Republicans, so a Republican-controlled House might be able to cut back on some of Obama's programs, and if we're really lucky they'll target the bad ideas more than the good.

Hrm... (2)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143358)

I see no problem with this. Then again I always believed that behavior profiling is a better method of screening anyway. It's very hard to train yourself to not set off behavioral queues for evasion, and so on, unless you've had a head injury that screws everything up.

Re:Hrm... (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143434)

It's very hard to train yourself to not set off behavioral queues for evasion, and so on...

...which is why militaries and paramilitaries offer hard training for the sort of people who need to evade behavioural queues (sic, intentional? because that's all they're going to create).

Re:Hrm... (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143476)

Uh-huh. I'm guessing you know how many years it takes to do something like that right? It's not exactly a crash course. You're not going to dispose of someone who's had training for that long, on being a splody-dope, etc.

Re:Hrm... (0)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143590)

How long is Marine's bootcamp/training? A couple of months? It doesn't take long to condition someone to bring about the physical responses you want.

Re:Hrm... (1)

Thruen (753567) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143762)

Since when do we train every Marine to do this? Since never. Think big, more along the lines of special forces or spies, there's quite a bit of training involved overall and it goes far deeper than trying to consciously control your actions to look less suspicious. I haven't gone through boot camp myself, so this is no expert testimonial, but from what I've been told that time is what you need to train and learn to survive in the battlefield, they don't touch espionage, infiltrating enemy forces, or anything that would require hiding behavior patterns to be in your skill set. There's no doubt in my mind that behavior profiling would be more effective than random selection to go through a scanner.

Re:Hrm... (2)

dogmatixpsych (786818) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143472)

But behavior profiling gets you sued here in America for violating civil liberties. It also gets you the label of racist. That's why the government is willing to do much more invasive things that are much less effective. It's not politically correct to perform behavioral profiles because you start the profiles based on what people look like and then all the sudden you are discriminating. Behavior profiling transcends race but for airport screening, race is one of the most helpful places to start, unfortunately. Racism is bad but political correctness results in a lot of needless complexity. It would be far better and cheaper to higher a few good profilers to scan airports rather than waste millions of dollars on machines of questionable efficacy.

Re:Hrm... (2, Interesting)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143506)

I've always thought of political correctness as just another form of racism, with a dash of sexism, and bigotry all mixed into one happy basket. And I say that as someone who's half-japanese. But otherwise you're spot on.

Re:Hrm... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36143552)

Actually we can't do behavioral profiling because idiots like you don't understand that it's not the same thing as racial profiling.

Racial profiling: "That guy is black but he's driving an expensive car. He probably stole the car."

Behavioral profiling: "That guy is driving conspicuously slow and it's 2:00am on a Saturday night, there's a good chance he's drunk."

Re:Hrm... (3, Insightful)

guspasho (941623) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143698)

Behavior profiling is not racial profiling, nor does it even require racial profiling. The simple solution to not getting labeled racist is don't be a fucking racist. Don't racially profile. Starting with race, yeah, that makes you a racist, and it's completely irrelevant to the job.

People want to blame this whole fiasco on the oppressive, all-powerful, "political correctness" but that's a bullshit strawman. Liberals had now power when the TSA was enacted, it was an entirely Republican invention, created at the height of Bush's popularity, and Democrats cheered it along with nary a complaint. The TSA doesn't want to hire well-trained employees and would rather have McGuards in front of expensive scanners bought through cozy no-bid contracts with companies that are paying off the TSA chiefs.

Re:Hrm... (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 2 years ago | (#36144380)

You think it's not racist now?

I fly several times a week, and except for those times I've opted out, I can remember two distinct times when the agent said I could go through the metal detector instead of the body scanner. It's funny, I see caucasian men being let through, and they notice me, and they make a couple of the men ahead of me go through the scanner as well, and then me, and the ones after me are all back to being happy campers.

Of course, in some places, they subject everyone from a 4 year old to an 90 year old to the scanner, but that's only the crazies.

Re:Hrm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36143624)

I set off behaviorial profiling all the time because I get severe anxiety out in public and at a security checkpoint, I become very nervous that I'm going to be flagged. I have nothing to hide. I just get nervous over being singled out, suspected, etc.

Re:Hrm... (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143802)

It's hard not to look slightly off when what's going through your head is, "I hate everything you stand for and, come revolution, your masters will be the first against the wall. But, as long as you're not being a jackass, I kinda feel sorry for you."

This is different (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143392)

The US *cutting* the budget of fear & safety stuff? The scanner manufacturer company must have done something to seriously piss off the US government...

Either that or they're getting ready to upgrade to the new tech that can detect explosives hidden inside body cavities, the APM X-RIBS (Anal Probe Mounted X-Ray Internal Body Scanner)

Re:This is different (0)

peragrin (659227) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143456)

nope the Republicans finally realized that 75% of their voters are old farts and cutting their medicaid and medicare is basically political suicide.

It is easier to trim the TSA budget than that trim down the poorly implemented mostly socialized health care that we have now.

Re:This is different (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143518)

There's only so much pork you can throw to your buddies before you derail the budget completely. They are greedy, but not suicidal.

The Wallet (1, Insightful)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143400)

Hit the TSA where it counts, the wallet. Face it, the body scanners aren't really doing anything anyway. In fact, security screening measures should be privatized again. There is no concrete evidence to suggest TSA is doing anything to thwart terrorism. Rather, they seem to enjoy groping people.

Re:The Wallet (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143532)

Hey! If it wasn't for that, I wouldn't have any sex life!

(but refrain from telling them, they don't seem to enjoy hearing about it... believe me that!)

Re:The Wallet (3, Interesting)

mini me (132455) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143582)

The market really should decide. Some people want to feel safe, so if people are willing to pay to board a flight that has been screened, then the service should be available. But if people want to board a plane with no screening, that should also be available to them.

Re:The Wallet (3, Interesting)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143640)

That is the best idea I've heard in a long time. Plus, you can make the screened flight cost extra! Just how much is "safety" worth to those people?

Re:The Wallet (2)

nebaz (453974) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143700)

The obvious counterargument to this is that even "unsafe" planes can be made to fly into buildings, and I'm not even a big fan of a lot of these TSA measures.

Re:The Wallet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36144472)

The obvious counter-counterargument is that even "unsafe" planes would have the cockpit doors locked per current standard procedure, so the risk does not extend beyond the passengers and crew. If I want to risk my life (what're the odds, one in a hundred million?) you have no justification here to stop me.

Re:The Wallet (1)

skids (119237) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143692)

Great! How much do the people on the unscreened flight have to pay me to make my building airplane-collision proof?

Re:The Wallet (1)

mixmatch (957776) | more than 2 years ago | (#36144062)

You do realize we were screening for all the things that would have prevented "building airplane-collision" before 2001, don't you?

Re:The Wallet (1)

skids (119237) | more than 2 years ago | (#36144406)

You do realize we haven't NOT been screening for the duration, so you have no clue what the rate of incidents without screening might be. The GP wants to make all screening measures optional. I have no doubt lots of customers would take that deal. I say let them as long as their ticket also pays for the hefty insurance premium needed to pay renters and investors in damaged buildings.

Re:The Wallet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36144326)

They all have locks on the doors now. So that part was already done.

Re:The Wallet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36144376)

You must not have ever flown on a plane before.
Not every flight is a direct flight.
Some flights stop at intermediate destinations. Some people get off the plane, some people stay on the plane, and some new people get on the plane.
If someone pays extra for screened planes, then it means that every time you make a transfer, you have to leave the secured area, and check-in again.
Or it means, that some planes will not allow boarding of passengers from certain airports.

Re:The Wallet (1)

Palal (836081) | more than 2 years ago | (#36144534)

How about "Some people want to feel safe, so if people are willing to pay to get screened before boarding a flight, then the service should be available.". For the rest of us I don't mind a basic metal detector + bag scan without all the shoe and liquid nonsense.

I hope this passes (5, Interesting)

yog (19073) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143466)

I hate those machines. I travel a lot, and I'm worried that (1) the radiation levels are higher than the manufacturer claims, and (2) it does nothing to protect us from terrorism.

Machines can only go so far. You have to have intelligent, well trained and highly motivated people on the scene.

A friend who was traveling in China recently told me that when he went through airport security there, it felt like he was in a modern, free country. Then when he came back to American airports, it felt like he was in a backward dictatorship.

The fact that they won't let us bring a 4 oz. or 6oz. yogurt, or a bottle of pure water, or a tube of what is obviously toothpaste, does not make us safer. It inconveniences us. I love yogurt and it's ridiculous that it can't be carried through security. Go ahead, open it, sniff it. It's milk, not nitroglycerine, or a binary explosive. Water is water. Toothpaste is toothpaste.

I also miss traveling with my little flat Swiss card which contains a one inch knife and a scissors and a tweezers. It was so convenient and I used it all the time. They confiscated the knife twice, because I forgot to remove it from my backpack before traveling. So I just stopped carrying it at all.

They blanket ban these things because they don't trust their employees to be intelligent enough to recognize the difference between a dangerous weapon and a bottle of shampoo or Coke. We're not safer, we're just angrier and hungrier as a result.

Ok I'm getting off my soap box now :(

Re:I hope this passes (4, Funny)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143568)

The fact that they won't let us bring a 4 oz. or 6oz. yogurt, or a bottle of pure water, or a tube of what is obviously toothpaste, does not make us safer. It inconveniences us. I love yogurt and it's ridiculous that it can't be carried through security. Go ahead, open it, sniff it. It's milk, not nitroglycerine, or a binary explosive.

I can't help but make a connection between this odd rant and your username.

Re:I hope this passes (1)

i.r.id10t (595143) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143570)

They blanket ban these things because they don't trust their employees to be intelligent enough to recognize the difference between a dangerous weapon and a bottle of shampoo or Coke.

Actually, either could make a handy weapon ...

Re:I hope this passes (2)

guruevi (827432) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143754)

Anything can really. I can (and have) disassembled parts of my seat (or the one in front of me) and they are much more dangerous (size of a club) as a weapon. Much of the cheaper airlines have been cutting cost on maintenance to the absolute bare minimum and as a result the interiors are literally falling apart. Most of them have loose components on or around the chairs which can easily be bent off or loosened by hand, one of them I traveled in had duct-taped one of those plastic divider walls because it had come loose. If they still have those in-chair computers (some don't anymore) you can easily loosen them too. Some of them run Linux, others Windows CE.

Can't solve human problems with only technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36143766)

I work in info security and this is a mantra we are trying to drill into management's head: you can't solve human problems only with technology. This is somewhat universal and crosses several disciplines: business, personal, and security at airports. Technology is rarely a solution on it own; it has to be chosen carefully with clear use cases and is often simply a backstop to changing human behavior.

Re:I hope this passes (1)

jlutes (1971840) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143866)

I agree. Airport security is just a very expensive dog and pony show. There have been more incidents of banned items found on aircraft such as guns, knives, etc. than terrorists arrested and the majority of the items were put/left there by...security. We taxpayers are paying insane amounts of money not to arrest terrorists but to get felt up and patted down.

Re:I hope this passes (1)

DinDaddy (1168147) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143868)

I hate those machines. I travel a lot, and I'm worried that (1) the radiation levels are higher than the manufacturer claims, and (2) it does nothing to protect us from terrorism.

If I were you, I'd stop worrying. I'd bet pretty heavily those are both facts.

In the case of 1, I am of the oipinion that the dose is probably still safe, at least compared to in flight radiation, but I am reasonably sure their BS handwaving arguments understate the effective dose at skin level, and that at risk people should be exempted from it (as should everyone else for your second point).

Re:I hope this passes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36144264)

You're all ignoring the H&B lobby. The Health & Department of your hotel shop was suffering greatly when you could just take stuff with you already had at home. By preventing that, these shops regain a lucrative market of people having to rebuy everything they already have, shampoo, toothpaste, nail trimmers, etc. That, coupled with the food sellers on the other side of the security gate lobby was all just too much for the policitians, and they had to cave.

Re:I hope this passes (1)

Idbar (1034346) | more than 2 years ago | (#36144324)

They have had security checkpoints in my country for way longer than I can remember. I used to love the US airports because you got to stay with your loved ones until you boarded the plane. Now, you just see them embarrassingly getting rid of their shoes, belts, x-rayed while saying good bye.... how lovely.

LIKE he was in a backward dictatorship? (2)

TiggertheMad (556308) | more than 2 years ago | (#36144440)

A friend who was traveling in China recently told me that when he went through airport security there, it felt like he was in a modern, free country. Then when he came back to American airports, it felt like he was in a backward dictatorship.

I went to Canada a few years ago. The Canadian customs officer I spoke to on the way in was friendly, polite, and asked me a few intelligent questions about my business there, and then waved me through. Coming back I was greeted by a squad of armed surly guards that were dressed like they were extras from the movie 'Brazil'. They were far more concerned with my 'papers' than anything else, and were even less friendly when I didn't have my passport with me. It was double plus ungood.

Re:I hope this passes (1)

pz (113803) | more than 2 years ago | (#36144544)

They blanket ban these things because they don't trust their employees to be intelligent enough to recognize the difference between a dangerous weapon and a bottle of shampoo or Coke.

Yes, and we see the same thing with the incremental proof of age at bars. First, it was left up to the judgement of the bartender. Then, policies were enacted that anyone who looked under 30 were blanket carded. Then 40. Now, at the airport bar at IAD owned by a large chain brewery, I happened to visit last week, they proudly announce that they require proof from everyone.

I am at present old enough that a hypothetical offspring of mine, born when I first became eligible to legally consume alcohol in the US, also would be above the legal age to drink. No one in their right mind would think I might be under 21. And yet because this congolmerate does not trust its employees (or, perhaps more accurately, does not pay its employees enough to be able to hire trustworthy ones), it annoys and alienates a certain fraction of its clientele. People are no longer required or expected to take personal responsibility for their actions, and it saddens me, for it surely is a harbinger of the decline of Western Civilization.

tsa opt-out loophole (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36143492)

At the Atlanta airport, I didn't want to go through the scanner because I had enough medical radiation for the year -- I tried to ask for the YouTube worthy method -- the agent looked around and said the male agent wasn't available and I'd have to wait -- because of time constraints, I acquiesced to getting scanned and will welcome my future mutated offspring when they arrive -- hopefully they get free college out of this

Re:tsa opt-out loophole (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143634)

I flew recently, the first time in a while.

At Logan airport in Boston, MA I saw the full body scanner. They didn't make me go through it, no anyone else I was with.

We went through the metal detector right next to it.

Re:tsa opt-out loophole (1)

berashith (222128) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143638)

I guess they wouldnt like it if you explained that you preferred for a woman to hold your penis . I would opt out of the xray for a handjob too!

Just for show (3, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143566)

A few Congressmen will make get a lot of press for this--defending our rights, standing up against the TSA for the common man, etc. Then at the end of the day, they'll back down and nothing will ever come of it. It's just to get themselves some positive press. They have no intention of really accomplishing anything.

Re:Just for show (1)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143646)

Do you even know how federal legislation works? Why would the people who proposed this decide against it?

Re:Just for show (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#36144136)

The decide against it by proposing it without the votes to pass it. It dies, they get the good press, and nothing comes of it. It's just for show.

Doing it for the wrong reasons (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143626)

House Republicans are doing this to save money. They don't give a damn about privacy or the Fourth Amendment, the porn scanners are bad because they cost money.

Re:Doing it for the wrong reasons (1)

cobrausn (1915176) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143726)

...the porn scanners are bad because they waste money.

Now I agree.

Re:Doing it for the wrong reasons (1)

exentropy (1822632) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143784)

...the porn scanners are bad because they waste money.

Now I agree.

It's not a waste if they sell it o.O

Re:Doing it for the wrong reasons (3, Insightful)

Shotgun (30919) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143884)

Yes? Do you have a point that everyone doesn't know already? We also know that the scanners are useless. Being expensive and useless, is it wrong to try to save money?

Re:Doing it for the wrong reasons (2)

sribe (304414) | more than 2 years ago | (#36144132)

ouse Republicans are doing this to save money. They don't give a damn about privacy or the Fourth Amendment, the porn scanners are bad because they cost money.

You've got half the answer: they're bad because they cost money and they do not contribute to safety. If there were any evidence at all, or even particularly reasonable assumptions, that these things are an important improvement in safety, these Republicans would certainly not be spending their time, effort & political capital trying to shut them down.

Re:Doing it for the wrong reasons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36144174)

Ranking these dubious devices low on the list of costly priorities is, in fact, a perfectly legitimate reason. Exaggerated privacy concerns enjoy no exclusive claim to discontent over full body scanners.

Be sure not to let these events dispel any of your 'fear' mantra either; canceling scanners doesn't mean the stoopid wing-nuts aren't paralyzed with fear over imaginary terrorists... it just means they're even more terrified of spending!

or something

Filter bubbles (1)

Solandri (704621) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143752)

After that article on filter bubbles yesterday, it's amusing/disconcerting to see an effort by Republicans to strip funding for these scanners characterized as "the House of Representatives" trying to strip funding.

Re:Filter bubbles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36144226)

The republicans do hold the majority of seats in the house and control the chamber.

Trying? (1)

DinDaddy (1168147) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143808)

How can Congress be "trying?" Either only some of Congress is trying, and some is resisting, or they are doing it. Congress as a whole does as Yoda says.

More groping, less radiation (1)

assertation (1255714) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143830)

I guess this means more groping and less radiation.

If they were smart, they could turn it into an income source. Just hire really attractive guards, play some Barry White music, etc.

Just buy insurance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36143852)

The US should dismantle the entire TSA and take 10% of it's funding and buy insurance for anyone who dies in a terrorist attack on US soil.

The House GOP is trying, not "Congress" (2)

DavidinAla (639952) | more than 2 years ago | (#36143870)

The headline here was written by someone who either doesn't understand the process or was being sloppy. Congress as a whole isn't trying to cut scanner funding. Republicans in the House of Representatives -- just one house of Congress -- are trying to cut funding. Even if it passes the House, it won't pass in the Senate. And Obama wouldn't sign it if it DID pass both houses of Congress. But on the basis issue of accuracy, it's wrong. "Congress" isn't trying to do anything at this point on this issue.

Dogs... (1)

tsnorquist (1058924) | more than 2 years ago | (#36144102)

From the explosives side, I've just simply never understood why or how these machines are better than a bomb sniffing dog. Dogs are impartial to: age, sex, race, religion.. etc. They can do the job significantly faster and are generally liked by passengers.

I suppose someone could bring through a composite knife passing through metal detectors, but just lock the cockpit doors and give the pilots a couple .357's. /shrug

Re:Dogs... (2)

MrDoh! (71235) | more than 2 years ago | (#36144248)

Dogs ARE better, but they don't have lobbyists. More money to be made selling a tech solution. Therefore we ended up with the most expensive solution, not the best.

Other parts of the bill ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36144142)

FEMA State and Local Grant Reform, $13B in unspent funds.

No earmarks, so far.

$11.8 billion for Customs and Border Protection, an increase of $443 million over last year’s level
$5.8 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is $35 million above last year’s level
$7.8 billion for the TSA, an increase of $125 million over last year’s level
$10 billion for the Coast Guard, which is $196 million below last year’s level
$1.7 billion for the Secret Service, an increase of $155 million over last year’s level
$5.3 billion for FEMA, a decrease of $1.9 billion from last year’s level

Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility and Detainees – The legislation includes a provision prohibiting funds to transfer, release, or assist in the transfer or release of Guantanamo detainees to or within the United States or its territories. The provision also prohibits immigration benefits to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other detainee. Why is there such thing as immigration benefits for anyone?

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...