Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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

Thank you!

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

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

TSA Got Everything It Wanted For Christmas

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the nothing-to-hide-enjoy-the-massage dept.

Government 338

OverTheGeicoE writes "It looks like Congress' recent jabs at TSA were just posturing after all. Last Friday, President Obama signed a spending act passed by both houses of Congress. The act gives TSA a $7.85 billion budget increase for 2012 and includes funding for 12 additional multi-modal Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams and 140 new behavior detection officers. It even includes funding for 250 shiny new body scanners, which was originally cut from the funding bill last May."

cancel ×

338 comments

Well, (3, Insightful)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531424)

damn.

Can we just... start over?

Re:Well, (5, Insightful)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531474)

Yes. Revolution is an extension of evolution.

Re:Well, (2)

Gription (1006467) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531742)

You have now been marked for elimination.
(resistance is futile!)

Re:Well, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38531858)

Does God exist? The human body is complex. Atheists are enigmas. Does God exist?

Re:Well, (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38532108)

Revolution is a word tossed around by wannabe anarchists who make a show of desiring change but lack the commitment to actually enable any change. It's hip, it's fashionable, and it's anti-establishment so people feel empowered by endorsing revolution.

Moving towards the less mature arenas, on college campuses you see people promoting revolution and hinting at violence as a component of it. It's another false sense of empowerment; the idea that violence can create real and permanent change is mostly untrue in modern times in the Western world.

Like it or not, we are stuck with the system that we have. Revolution will never happen and if it did, it would never change anything. It's better to use one's time and money to make corrective measures to the existing system. In particular striving for more transparency in policies and programs helps keep the politicians honest as they have to disclose what they do, and things like the FOIA have been quite a benefit. That's something we can pursue realistically without the false pretense of revolution.

Imagine if all the Occupiers had a coherent and uniform message about one particular issue, and had well thought out demonstrations. They may have been able to tweak things by now. But instead it's a bunch of disorganized pot-smoking street people all claiming their own cause and causing trouble. That is most definitely not the root of an revolution or any kind of progress. All the Middle East movements had very definite goals and that helped immensely.

In short I disagree with your comment, and I think it's the kind of pretentious thing a hipster would say.

Re:Well, (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38531516)

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Just sayin'.

Re:Well, (3, Insightful)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531544)

Not likely to work. The culture of fear has taken hold. People want the comfort of being taken care of.

Re:Well, (-1, Flamebait)

DaHat (247651) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531644)

Wait? This passed by only a single vote and had Scott Brown not taken the place of Kennedy... it would have been defeated... right?

Re:Well, (0, Offtopic)

DaHat (247651) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531714)

oops... posted the above to the wrong comment...

Re:Well, (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531688)

It's starting to feel like that's the only way.

Re:Well, (3, Insightful)

smelch (1988698) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531706)

Sadly, I'm not sure that starting over is a great idea. Have you seen the majority of people in the states? I wouldn't trust them to rebuild after a revolution. I think we should just split up the US in to 2 - 4 sections and let them progress in their own ways.

Re:Well, (4, Funny)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531778)

better yet, lets have it split into 50 sections then have a small union bound by a written document with very explicitly limited powers to keep them together and playing nice.

Re:Well, (1)

preaction (1526109) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531806)

That sounds awfully like it's been tried at least twice...

Re:Well, (4, Informative)

toriver (11308) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531990)

You guys are way behind: The French are already on their fifth republic...

Re:Well, (2)

smelch (1988698) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531870)

I think it'd be better to not have anything binding them to playing nice, it apparently leads to them playing too nice and forming a conglomerate/monopoly and acting the exact same way. If anything, we should have a document making them play dirty with each other.

Re:Well, (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531964)

Dont forget to include this section: There shall be NO civil war. Not even for the sake of kids (protecting them from some......thing).

Re:Well, (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531934)

Well done mr President. You have ruined the whole 2012 for me.

Let us proceed... (4, Funny)

ToiletBomber (2269914) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531438)

...to welcome our new freeway groin-grabbing, tit-feeling overlords.

Meet the new boss (3, Insightful)

cosm (1072588) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531462)

...same as the old...oh fuck it. I'm starting my own country in Antarctica. This place is burning.

Re:Meet the new boss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38531508)

No it isn't. We can beat this, we've been through worse.

Re:Meet the new boss (2)

Merk42 (1906718) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531670)

How?
Vote new people in that will just do the same?
Protest and be mocked/ignored?
Violently and instantly be labeled a terrorist?

Re:Meet the new boss (2)

Gription (1006467) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531826)

More to the point:
Have you seen the lineup that is the best they can come up with for the next election? Geeze... You would think the companies that pay for our elected officials would have provided a better selection.

Re:Meet the new boss (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38531880)

Then run yourself. Find other people who feel the same way you do and get yourselves organised. Get people to run for office, everywhere from School Boards to President. Tell people about the issues you feel strongly about, and tell them how you plan to deal with them.

Or just sit around on the Internet and complain about it, like everybody else does.

Re:Meet the new boss (3, Informative)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#38532048)

Do you know how hard that is?

I've seen people try. They are almost always removed from ballots on technicalities (signatures not being in cursive, or not matching a 50 year old voter registration card, its crazy to run outside the establishment)

Re:Meet the new boss (5, Insightful)

theVP (835556) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531562)

Between this, Indefinite Detention, and SOPA, I am really struggling to recognize America this month.

Re:Meet the new boss (5, Insightful)

binary paladin (684759) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531726)

Hope and change my friends. Hope and change.

Until we dump the two party monopoly in America, the current direction will not waver regardless of which presidential candidate gets elected.

Re:Meet the new boss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38532136)

Party duopoly**

Re:Meet the new boss (5, Informative)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531782)

Re:Meet the new boss (1)

theVP (835556) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531860)

Well, during other months they don't do anything at all, and that's altogether more recognizable for me.

Re:Meet the new boss (4, Funny)

toriver (11308) | more than 2 years ago | (#38532018)

Hey, don't criticize the War on Drugs! It recently turned 40 and is starting to develop a bald spot. Go easy on him OK?

Re:Meet the new boss (1)

von_rick (944421) | more than 2 years ago | (#38532266)

In a few years it will be sitting on a porch in a rocking chair and waving fists and shouting at you to get off its lawn.

Re:Meet the new boss (2)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531808)

You must be really old if this looks different.

Re:Meet the new boss (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38531898)

I'm 49. Sometimes that feels really old, sometimes not. But I absolutely concur with theVP that America now is almost unrecognizable, politically and culturally, from the America when I was a kid.

I'm sure people my age from every previous generation said the same thing. Something tells me that most of them said it with pride, not sadness, anger, and frustration.

Re:Meet the new boss (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531954)

Between this, Indefinite Detention, and SOPA, I am really struggling to recognize America this month.

Don't forget the torture.

What's indefinite detention without a bit of torture to spice it up?

Re:Meet the new boss (4, Funny)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 2 years ago | (#38532054)

We don't do torture, we just waterboard people. Those are two entirely different things.

JEWS... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38532092)

There is only ONE cause of all this bullshit: the Eternal Jew. The JEW. Get it through your thick skulls. The Jews will not be happy until you are all terrified of criticising them, because THEY have made it illegal to do so. Try living in the U.K. You can't even say the word 'Jew' in public, without being greeted with hate-filled stares from brainwashed goyim (cattle), who rush to defend the very people who have enslaved them! It's sickening to see.

The Jews own the banks, which issue 97% of the money in existence. "Issue" means CREATE - they CREATE money out of nothing, every time they make a loan to one of their 'cattle', and then WE, their 'cattle', have to pay back that loan with REAL money, which we have to do REAL work for, or lose our REAL assets, such as our houses, and other possessions.
The Jews own the entire media, and tell you what to think. The Jews tell your government what to do, and send your children off to fight THEIR fucking wars.

Wake up, before it's too late.

How ? (2)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531476)

All of that because one democrat Senator died at the wrong time...

Damn.

Re:How ? (5, Insightful)

BobZee1 (1065450) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531550)

I thought Barack Obama was a democrat.

Re:How ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38531604)

So did I

Re:How ? (3, Funny)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531992)

So did Barak Obama...

Re:How ? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531674)

I thought Barack Obama was a fascist like his predecessor.

Yeah, I got that feeling too...

Re:How ? (1)

cosm (1072588) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531594)

All of that because one democrat Senator died at the wrong time... Damn.

Even if that one senator had lived, congress/senate/executive office would still get to win more douchery eventually. All of that because the house, senate, and executive office is still alive and dicking, takin' our internets and grabbin our crotches. Give it 30 years and hopefully the next batch of politicos will be....nevermind.

I'll just go long on Brawndo stock.

Parties? Plural? (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531636)

When did the difference between Democrats and Republicans amount to anything more than a distraction? We have a one-party system, except that the one party happens to be somewhat divide on minor issues like gay marriage and abortion rights. People are easily distracted, which is how these crooks get away with so many abuses of power.

Re:Parties? Plural? (4, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38532014)

One party fought for public option health care. They fought for increased taxes on those who can afford it, rather than insisting that taxes only ever go down. They fought against the enormous and expensive blunder that was the Iraq war. They fought against allowing unlimited corporate money to influence politics. They fought against torture. They fought against teaching creationism in school. And despite your hand-waving dismissal, they fought for the rights of gays and women, who probably don't view themselves as minor issues. And that's just off the top of my head.

Saying the parties are the same is just the excuse of the lazy, trying to rationalize why they don't bother voting.

Re:Parties? Plural? (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38532268)

Really? The democrats fought against the Iraq war? That explains the bipartisan support for the war in 2003. Healthcare would have been a good move...except that we do not have it, and a democratic majority failed to delivery it. Corporations wield just as much power over congress today as they did during the Bush and Clinton presidencies.

They fought against torture

While failing to fight against the prison-industrial complex, and while fighting for NDAA.

despite your hand-waving dismissal, they fought for the rights of gays and women, who probably don't view themselves as minor issues

Sorry, but gay marriage is a pretty minor issue by comparison with the other problems facing this country. What do you consider to be more important, allowing people to marry members of the same sex, or not being the world leader in imprisoning people? When we stop having law enforcement officers that carry M-16s on a day-to-day basis, maybe gay marriage will move up a notch.

While you were busy cheering for the democrats pulling our troops out of Iraq (after nearly a decade spent in Iraq, and the approval of the democrats for the invasion in the first place), they were busy establishing more surveillance, more law enforcement power, more curtailments of your rights, more hand-outs for large corporations, more union busting policies, more censorship, and more imprisonment -- just like the republicans. It was not a republican president whose drug czar interfered in popular TV show scripts for the purpose of spreading propaganda.

Yeah, I see what you mean about them being different from the republicans. After all, the republicans try appealing to the religious sentiments of middle America, while the democrats only use racial prejudice and fear. Republicans overtly support big business, while the democrats quietly support big business. As someone with liberal leanings, I guess it is clear that I should stop voting third party and start voting for the democrats, right?

Re:Parties? Plural? (2)

BoberFett (127537) | more than 2 years ago | (#38532276)

Do you really believe what you just wrote? The party you're referring to did nothing of the sort, they were complicit in everything the other party did.

Re:Parties? Plural? (1)

mianne (965568) | more than 2 years ago | (#38532078)

Which is why I beg people to vote for 3rd party candidates. Independent, Green, Libertarian, Constitution, whichever... From your local alderman to the POTUS. Pick someone whose positions reflect your values and beliefs Odds are infinitesimally slim that any of them will be elected, but if you don't support the actions of the two major parties, what difference does it make? I'd bet that if all 3rd party presidential candidates combined received a plurality of the popular vote; that would have a much bigger impact on whichever Republican or Democratic candidate was ultimately elected than either a vote for them or their chief rival.

Re:How ? (2)

DaHat (247651) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531676)

I'm still trying to find the voting record on this... but somehow I have a hard time beleiving that this passed by only a single vote and had Scott Brown not taken the place of Kennedy... it would have been defeated.

Almost 8 billion dollars... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38531540)

...Not going to education, science, health care, yadda yadda because that would 'cost too much money'

Re:Almost 8 billion dollars... (5, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531720)

For comparison, the entire budget of the National Science Foundation, across all programs and disciplines, is $6.87 billion.

Re:Almost 8 billion dollars... (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38532016)

but is is for the KIDS. Don't you wanna the kids to feel safe?

And you all thought (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38531548)

it was Change worth believing in. But your Hope was dashed. Suckas.

Re:And you all thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38531610)

There is no difference whatsoever between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to TERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRORISTS.

Re:And you all thought (1)

Haxzaw (1502841) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531692)

There is no difference whatsoever between Democrats, Republicans, or Terrorists when it comes to TERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRORISM. There, fixed it for you.

no love lost for TSA but still (5, Informative)

snarkh (118018) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531568)

$7.85 billion is the budget, not the budget increase.

Re:no love lost for TSA but still (3, Insightful)

Crudely_Indecent (739699) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531724)

FTA:

up $153 million from 2011

So, they did get an increase.....it was merely obscene instead of absolutely ridiculous.

Re:no love lost for TSA but still (5, Insightful)

snarkh (118018) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531752)

Well, their budget is larger than that of the National Science Foundation. If that is not obscene, I do not know what is.

Re:no love lost for TSA but still (2)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38532036)

A 2% increase isn't even really obscene, more like an adjustment for inflation. Of course, it would be better if the Republicans would direct their "starve the beast" fury at an agency deserving of it, rather than at agencies that advance scientific knowledge, feed the hungry, and care for the ill.

Misleading Summary (5, Informative)

Entropy98 (1340659) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531570)

The TSA didn't receive a $7.85 billion budget increase, according to the article, their total budget is $7.85 billion with an increase of $153 million over the previous year.

Re:Misleading Summary (1)

Quanticfx (2443904) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531606)

Man, beat me to it. Here's the quote anyway.

In the FY 2012 consolidated spending act (Public Law 112-074) signed by President Barack Obama last Friday, TSA received about $7.85 billion, up $153 million from 2011.

The machine (1)

U8MyData (1281010) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531578)

Yet more proof that the machine is still churning. Cosm, you taking applications? ;-)

Behavior Detection Officers (1)

olsmeister (1488789) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531588)

Am I the only one, or does this just sound Orwellian?

I am a horrible flier, I do it when I need to for business but am usually white-knuckled the whole way. Then, when I am there, I seem to not be able to stop thinking about the trip home. I don't need one more thing to deter me from flying...

Re:Behavior Detection Officers (3, Insightful)

Gription (1006467) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531980)

Flying is dangerous!!!

... because you have to ride in a car to get to the airport, you probably walked up or down stairs (and/or escalators), and you probably took a shower or a bath before you left. Those all are quite a bit more risky then flying.

Other then that, the real risk is the 100% risk that the government will stomp all over your personal property rights, privacy rights, and any possible right to dignity,

The Answer to 1984... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38531590)

... Is the spirit of 1776

When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag and waving a cross

Re:The Answer to 1984... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38531790)

Odd... this President waves neither and yet pushes for various types of fascism.

Any chance you have your parties backwards?

I feel safer already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38531592)

I feel safer already

In Their Defence... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38531596)

no terrorist has brought an American plane down since 2001

Re:In Their Defence... (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531740)

Had any terrorist brought down a plane before 2001?

Re:In Their Defence... (2)

pentalive (449155) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531830)

No, But only because the other passengers beat them down, while they tried to light their shoe or underwear.

Re:In Their Defence... (1)

pentalive (449155) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531862)

oops you said "Before" - Lockerbie?

Re:In Their Defence... (1)

DaHat (247651) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531904)

Bull. In both cases the devices failed to ignite properly... it was only after they failed were they beaten down.

Had the shoe bomber had a lighter (vs some matches)... or had the underpants bomber had something better than an acid based trigger... both would have had a better chance of success... not to mention there is also the possibility that both devices were less effective due to the time being worn (the shoe bombers first flight was canceled, while the underpants bomber waited until the absolute end of the flight to trigger it)... it's worth considering that both men sweated a bit during their wearing of their devices... retarding their effectiveness.

Re:In Their Defence... (4, Insightful)

DaHat (247651) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531852)

But is that because of or in spite of the TSA?

When Napolitano said "the system worked" with regards to the underpants bomber... she was right... but not why she thinks.

Just as with the shoe bomber, both attacks were thwarted not by the TSA, not by attentive passengers... but because of limited options on the part of the terrorist.
In the old days, a terrorist would smuggle on to the plane almost anything as there was virtually no security. Whether it be DB Cooper or Pan Am Flight 103 the sky was the limit.

Know what happened? We started looking for such things. All of the sudden getting a traditional bomb, gun or knife onto the plane got a lot harder... so the bad guys would have to find other means. The problem though (as evidenced by both the shoe and underpants bomber) is that some of their alternatives are not as effective as they’d like... leading to an increased chance of failure.

Don’t get me wrong... the majority of what we face at the airport today is security theater... one upshot of which is we have (theoretically) increased the chances of finding a bomb/knife/gun carrier... forcing them to try to find more difficult ways.

Body scanners are not the answer... profiling and behavioral analysis is.

It’s no wonder El Al hasn’t been hijacked in in 40+ years. They take security seriously and don’t dink around with nonsense like forcing people to take off their shoes or (likely unhealthy) body scanners.

Re:In Their Defence... (1)

smelch (1988698) | more than 2 years ago | (#38532248)

The whole thing is ridiculous. The only real solution is to make sure people don't want to hurt us, because they can. Blowing up a plane is way less effective than blowing up a security checkpoint, and it is way more difficult. Odd that this hasn't happened, perhaps the threat is more overstated than we suspected. Or better yet, they don't need to terrorize us because they got it all done in one go a decade ago.

Elephant Repellant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38531950)

That's because of the elephant repellant. Too bad it doesn't work on GOP elephants.

What is there to gain. (4, Interesting)

Cstryon (793006) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531602)

Here we are owing all sorts of money, and now we are giving a whole lot of money that doesn't exist, to a program that has yielded no worth? What's to gain? I've heard all of the bad news about TSA, and all the molesting, and violations that they commit, with no reprocutions. But please, someone explain to me what is it that the Government really benefits from this.

Perhaps a bad comparison, I support owning a firearm. I have family and friends who have use their guns in defense, so I see some benefit, among all the risks. But I do not own a gun, or have one in my home. Why? Because I have never been in a situation that I required a gun.
This is like posting armed guards in my upper middle class neighborhood home!

Re:What is there to gain. (1)

Deliveranc3 (629997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531694)

I'm with you 100% on the doesn't work. They hid some bombs on some unsuspecting people to test the system, 95% got through. It only made the news because one of the people made it home with his :P

As usual, summary incorrect... (4, Informative)

Ecuador (740021) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531620)

If you actually RTFA the increase is $153 million and the entire budget for the TSA is $7.85 billion.
Of course it still is a huge amount, considering that the TSA is simply a security theater and ALL that money goes to waste. Plus, that money is close to half of the entire NASA budget... Yeah, way to go for ROI!
And all that does not make it right for the summary to be so off, but this is slashdot!

Re:As usual, summary incorrect... (0, Flamebait)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531712)

TSA is a socialist jobs program. People with little or no skill get good pay and benefits on the gov't teat. Any good Democrat should be supporting this.

Re:As usual, summary incorrect... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38531844)

I'd get more benefit from, and prefer, to pay them to do nothing.

Re:As usual, summary incorrect... (2)

Johnny Mnemonic (176043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531936)

And yet it was created by Bush, the biggest funder of overpaid do-nothings this generation. Nothing gets the GOP going more than overpaying for an unaccountable paramilitary.

Take your fables elsewhere, troll.

Well that blows (1)

Jackdaw Rookery (696327) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531632)

It also gropes or irradiates.

Personally I'd opt for the groping, embarrassing but safer.

Better idea (2)

robinsonne (952701) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531634)

I've got a better idea, how about Congress gives every active user of /. a measly $50,000 or so and we all go buy ourselves a shiny terrorist-repelling rock. It would probably be just as effective.

Re:Better idea (2)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531730)

I've got a better idea, how about Congress gives every active user of /. a measly $50,000 or so and we all go buy ourselves a shiny terrorist-repelling rock. It would probably be just as effective.

I'd prefer the rock! It wouldn't grope or irradiate me, and if something really went down I could at least chuck it at somebody.

What's the deal with VIPR? (3, Interesting)

steveha (103154) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531788)

I'm not thrilled with the security checkpoints at airports, but I do understand that an airplane can be turned into a giant guided missile that can take down a skyscraper. It may be that extreme measures are appropriate for security at an airport.

But how does it make sense to send a VIPR team to search people getting on or off a train? How do you justify that? Are they going to drive the train off the tracks and blow up a building?

"Oh maybe someone has a bomb in his luggage." How often do trains get blown up in America? What are the odds here? And even if the security becomes 100% effective on trains, what about bombs set on the train tracks? Searching train luggage seems completely futile to me.

Has a VIPR team ever caught a terrorist or found a bomb, ever?

Remember, we send people to prison for not paying taxes, or maybe take their homes away. Should we really be using tax dollars for VIPR teams?

steveha

Re:What's the deal with VIPR? (2)

frosty_tsm (933163) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531850)

I'm not thrilled with the security checkpoints at airports, but I do understand that an airplane can be turned into a giant guided missile that can take down a skyscraper. It may be that extreme measures are appropriate for security at an airport.

But how does it make sense to send a VIPR team to search people getting on or off a train? How do you justify that? Are they going to drive the train off the tracks and blow up a building?

It's for all those people who last year proudly said "Then don't fly!"

Re:What's the deal with VIPR? (3, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531970)

I do understand that an airplane can be turned into a giant guided missile that can take down a skyscraper. It may be that extreme measures are appropriate for security at an airport.

This has not been true since Sept. 11, 2001 when people decided that letting a terrorist hijack a plane was no longer a good idea. Of course, the measures taken do precisely shit for security.

But how does it make sense to send a VIPR team to search people getting on or off a train? How do you justify that? Are they going to drive the train off the tracks and blow up a building?

Because everything is justified by the "War on Terror" even if no logic or data exists otherwise.

Has a VIPR team ever caught a terrorist or found a bomb, ever?

Nope, and they never will.

But you can bet your ass that some contractors and equipment vendors will make a lot of money off of this. And I suspect, like Chertoff, it wouldn't be hard to trace the contracts that are inevitably issued back to the senators who support this garbage.

Re:What's the deal with VIPR? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38531984)

Has a VIPR team ever caught a terrorist or found a bomb, ever?

Nope, but that's not what they're for.

Re:What's the deal with VIPR? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38532024)

But how does it make sense to send a VIPR team to search people getting on or off a train? How do you justify that? Are they going to drive the train off the tracks and blow up a building?

There's a reason it's referred to as security 'theater,' Broseph.

Re:What's the deal with VIPR? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38532148)

The government and the TSA are just declaring officialy that the US is a police state.
Wellcome to your new reality.

Ps : these mesures serve no purpose. You remember the bombings that took place in sevral train amd train stations in spain several years ago ? Hundreds died in the bombings and yet Spain hasn't turned into a police state. The rule of law and the right enforcement is all that is needed to deal with terrorism without throwing out constitutional protections and other ideals down the drain.
Turning the whole terrorism issue into some kind of eternal war serves no purpose other than to keep under control the population (with means that under normal cirmustances would be outlawed). In effect the US has become one of those arab countries that have been for decades under martial/emergency law because of some abstract danger. And we all know how that ends don't we ? Look forward to 3-4 decades in the future, the US is poised to have its own spring revolution or its october revolution. Depends how things turn out.

Re:What's the deal with VIPR? (1)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#38532154)

No it can't. There is zero threat of a passenger liner being used as a missile ever again.

Americans won't allow. We know the option. We'll die to stop it. As was done on the 4th plane.

Re:What's the deal with VIPR? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38532200)

Ir's to get people used to men in uniform gropping them. They can't jump directly from TSA at airport to surprise cavity search at people's homes (or can they?)

TSA Body Scanners/MF Global (1)

hackus (159037) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531796)

Nice.

If Corzine goes through one, hopefully the TSA can recover MF Globals money.

-Hackus

obama (1)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531846)

not voting for obama again. so much potential, so little result

Re:obama (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38531982)

yes, surely one of the other amazing nominees currently in the running will provide closer to what you wanted and expected from the obama presidency...

do we just give in, and elect someone the house/senate won't spend four years deliberately undermining the administration?

 

Re:obama (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 2 years ago | (#38532166)

Enjoy "President Gingrich".

Average Joe (1)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531960)

How about take a fraction of that budget and start programs that informs/teaches the public how to spot and handle terrorist/terrorist activities? Seams like the average Joe is doing a pretty good job of this already.

F@ck, I hate our politicians.

Re:Average Joe (1)

twotacocombo (1529393) | more than 2 years ago | (#38532256)

Sure, let's get the children involved in this too, eh comrade bob? Or is it herr? Either way, I think this slippery slope has been fallen down a few times before.

the more things change... (1)

ronpaulisanidiot (2529418) | more than 2 years ago | (#38531974)

... the more they stay the same. nobody should be surprised that this happened.

We are the enemy (5, Insightful)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#38532074)

It's pretty clear that the primary threat the Think Tanks envision is not shoe wearing, scrotum burning terrorist but rather the US population and what's likely to happen when it becomes obvious to every unemployed dolt that we are in a serious depression, that the chance of a multiple massive riots/race war/civil war starting is high and the sheer volume of military weaponry owned by the average citizen makes it a certainty that it will be bloody, very bloody.
From the nut job militias, (Idaho, Utah and elsewhere) massive illegal immigration, record gun sales and ammunition sales, to the fact that the membership of the 18th street gang in L.A. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18th_Street_Gang) is more than twice that of the police force, and that's just one gang, it's become clear that we are in serious trouble and it won't take much to set off the powder keg.

I hope I'm wrong about this and it's really just some large corporate contract raping the wallets of the American people again but things are looking grim.

Who would have stopped this? (1)

rock_climbing_guy (630276) | more than 2 years ago | (#38532246)

I have been advocating amonst my associates for my Presidential candidate of choice for the upcoming election.

Among the people standing for election, which candidate do you believe would most likely vetoed this, had he been President instead of Obama:

Romney, Gingrich, Paul, Santorum, Bachmann, Huntsman, or some other candidate?

I keep hearing that they're all the same, but as I hear about all the bullshit that has happened for the past four or more years, there is only one candidate who seems to constantly stand on the side of common sense. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...