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!

DHS Budget Includes No New Airport Body Scanners

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the read-my-x-rayed-lips dept.

Security 70

OverTheGeicoE writes "The Electronic Privacy Information Center has been examining the White House's proposed budget for Department of Homeland Security for 2013, and they point out that it doesn't include any money for additional airport body scanners for TSA. Did the recent scandal involving TSA workers targeting women for scans make the White House realize that TSA is a national embarrassment? Does the executive branch finally understand the questionable safety and effectiveness of these devices? Or does DHS just think it has enough scanners once TSA installs the 250 new scanners in this year's budget?"

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

Don't worry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39117465)

...I am sure some will be added as a "plus-up" when Congress gets hold of it.

Re:Don't worry (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39122563)

Probably just bury them in the stationary budget. I imagine the scanners themselves are already in a tsa warehouse somewhere.

Anyone putting any stock in the actual content of a federal agency's budget is not a serious person.

Re:Don't worry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39123467)

Think of the money we could save by replacing the DHS with military now that the war is over.
Why pay for both when the military was constitutionally implied to defend our borders. Well... they aren't at war now, whats the problem that so damned much money is needed for this that could be better spent on something more important than undertrained overpaid bureaucracies?
Billions that could go to education, medicine, poverty is all part of some ostentatious display so some monkey commander in chief can say "look how I care for you".
Yeah , lookit how the monkey cares for us.....

I suck nigger cocks (-1, Troll)

Slashdot is for fags (2579607) | more than 2 years ago | (#39117475)

Welcome to Slashdot, come for the goatse, stay for the hot grits.

Re:I suck nigger cocks (1)

kilfarsnar (561956) | more than 2 years ago | (#39126875)

You clearly have too much time on your hands.

Progress (4, Insightful)

CelticWhisper (601755) | more than 2 years ago | (#39117493)

It's a step in the right direction, though if you ask me only the full, outright abolition of this pathetic, unconstitutional joke of an agency qualifies as "enough." It'll be "fun" to see what kind of tantrum Chief Molester Pistole throws about being denied his latest batch of toys. Here's hoping Congress tells him to shut up and be thankful he got any money at all. Why they don't just strip all funding from TSA at this point is beyond me.

Re:Progress (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39117545)

What? We forgot to budget for the new scanners? Wow, thanks for pointing that oversight out.

We can just tap the money we had budgeted for unforseen natural disaster relief to pay for this year's round of new body scanner installments.

Keep up the good works, citizens!

Re:Progress (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118775)

I think you need to have a budget to have actually budgeted for anything. Congress hasn't passed a budget in years.

Re:Progress (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39119787)

The repeated failure to pass a budget is exactly why President Obama wants to reclassify Transportation spending as "mandatory" (instead of "discretionary").

I doubt you can get rid of it (-1, Troll)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118103)

short of a complete takeover by Republicans... and considering the candidates they offer up; I am a libertarian; I am not too excited at that prospect. Oh, I won't mind one bit if they displace the current Chief, just as long as they don't have both Houses too.

The TSA has fifty eight thousand employees, of which I think fifty thousand are eligible for their union. Do you think that kind of money rolls over?

Re:I doubt you can get rid of it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118607)

What about the long-shot of a Gary Johnson administration?

Re:I doubt you can get rid of it (4, Insightful)

blackpaw (240313) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119199)

short of a complete takeover by Republicans

Eh? It was republicans that created the TSA.

Re:I doubt you can get rid of it (0)

dtmancom (925636) | more than 2 years ago | (#39123285)

I thought it was a democratic congress that approved the TSA, and as we now know, it is the fault of whoever runs congress.

Re:I doubt you can get rid of it (1)

kilfarsnar (561956) | more than 2 years ago | (#39126891)

I thought it was a democratic congress that approved the TSA, and as we now know, it is the fault of whoever runs congress.

The .01%?

Re:I doubt you can get rid of it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39119627)

Why would the republicans get rid of the TSA? They are the people who created the DHS and TSA in the first place!

Not nearly enough progress (3, Informative)

Concern (819622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39120735)

Only in the Bush era could a treasury-looting boondoggle this bad actually go all the way to implementation.

These machines can be defeated by any illiterate petty criminal. Hello... body cavities?

Every actually respectable expert is on record against them, from Bruce Schneier to El Al's former head of security.

This is not just garden variety incompetence. The program was so wildly and thoroughly stupid that it goes beyond negligence into prima facie malicious intent. The bigs from the vendors and the feds on the procurement side should see prison on the grounds of corruption alone. It's no different than selling the army a billion dollars worth of non-working guns or vehicles to pocket the profits. God willing, someday we'll watch the trials on CSpan.

That's leaving aside the laugh-till-you-cry repugnant aspects of what they actually did - which is, let's not sugar coat it, take nude photographs of thousands and thousands of children.

not needed (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39117495)

Maybe they figure with crude over $100/barrel, unemployment 25%, inflation 10%, collapse of the EU, etc, that no one will be flying, so they're planning to install prairie schooner scanners and horse wagon scanners.

Re:not needed (0, Flamebait)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#39117611)

You're assuming the average American is smart enough to ride a horse. I doubt it.

For the record, I have no fucking clue how to ride a horse or to even begin to deal with them. Have some relatives that do, but I suspect that people that can ride a horse is going to be a pretty small percentage.

Going to be one hell of a learning curve :)

Re:not needed (4, Interesting)

saleenS281 (859657) | more than 2 years ago | (#39117695)

Basic horse riding is pretty trivial and could be learned in an afternoon with additional solo practice after the fact. Training/taming a horse on the other hand, is the real problem.

Re:not needed (2)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#39117869)

Yup, my grandma had a ranch and boarded horses for a living before she passed away.

Stallions aren't reasonable like men are. You get a few men in with a few women and the men'll at least bargain on which woman each is gonna get. No so with stallions, you put even equal parts stallion in with equal parts mare and you're gonna have a lot of head-jerking, stomping, risking possible injury.

You gotta read a horse's body language, their ears. A horse may be fine with you, but they will dominate and be disobedient to other riders until they break 'em. Horses aren't cats. These are large animals, symbols of pure strength and stamina, that'll kick your jaw off and go off running.

Having spent a lot of time on a horse ranch in my youth, I learned how to have the most fun with horses: wait until they piss, so their penises are dropped, and shoot 'em in their swingin' dicks with a BB gun from outside the corral. Doesn't cause damage and leads to much whoopin' and hollerin' as the horse takes off. Cap the night off with some of granny's old mint schnapps (at age 13) and good times were had for all.

Re:not needed (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119279)

Ethanol-fueled, indeed. Sounds like you may have been the cause of several cases of equine shy bladder syndrome. (Mine was caused by a "special needs" kid shoving me into the urinal, unprovoked, in sixth grade.)

Re:not needed (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 2 years ago | (#39117991)

Ah... how trivial it is depends very much on the environment you're riding in, the horse you're riding (is it a good horse? used to the environment? does it spook easily? ...)... :)

Re:not needed (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118227)

It is implied that a junior rider is paired with a well-tempered horse that knows its environment.

Re:not needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118331)

i can assure you "breaking" a horse sucks... sucks real bad. but so does being nipped and rolled but you live and you learn :D and horse rule #1 if his ears go back..... get back.

Re:not needed (2)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119249)

Training/taming a horse on the other hand, is the real problem.

Heh, well, I've broken horses before. You just have to know how to do it.

It's fairly simple: as you're starting to lose your seat, you will notice that one of your arms starts flailing. It is at this point that you must make a quick maneuver; I've found that pushing the left stick in the opposite direction as you're falling, will keep you on the horse. After about 10 to 30 seconds of this (depending on the top speed of said horse), you'll hear a victory noise and the camera will spin around, and the horse is yours.

Re:not needed (1)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119713)

I just put two points into riding straight up. If you choose your class right, you can get the "tamer" perk and you don't have to do the minigame each time.

Re:not needed (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 2 years ago | (#39120369)

I'm talking Red Dead Redemption. What are you talking? :)

Re:not needed (1)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 2 years ago | (#39121927)

Any number of terrible, terrible CRPGs.

Re:not needed (2)

GodInHell (258915) | more than 2 years ago | (#39117743)

Learning to ride a horse is thoroughly enjoyable. You should try it.

Also -- they're not actually all that efficient when you consider the massive quantities of food and space they need to live in.

-GiH

Re:not needed (2)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118029)

Learning to ride a horse is thoroughly enjoyable. You should try it.

I'm sure it is. I just know that riding a horse is one thing, truly understanding it is another, and long term care another still. If people took care of horses in the same way they do their cars the horse would be dead in a month.

Also -- they're not actually all that efficient when you consider the massive quantities of food and space they need to live in.

Are you talking about the horses or the humans? :)

Re:not needed (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119877)

Don't forget the road apples. Even the most hardcore, anti-car, enviro-whacko ought to be glad that our streets aren't 3 feet thick with horse shit.

Re:not needed (2)

petsounds (593538) | more than 2 years ago | (#39117779)

Really? I'm pretty sure most Americans could ride a horse. We all managed quite well 200 years ago. I grew up riding horses; it's not hard. It's more about communication -- learning what signals the horse is giving you, and how to properly give signals to the horse.

I have to take exception to this "Americans are dumb" sentiment. Americans are vastly undereducated on the whole -- both in an institutional context and a cultural/parental one -- but they are no more or less intelligent than any other country's inhabitants. They are never inspired to push themselves, to be challenged, to learn. In fact, American culture has come to think of intelligence as "uncool" -- a frightening development. That's why what's going on in our country is such a tragedy. But saying the average American is not intelligent enough to ride a horse -- that's just elitism.

Re:not needed (2)

uigrad_2000 (398500) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118075)

"Could ride a horse" and "could ride a horse great distances" are very different things.

I have family that has horses, so I occasionally ride. But, I get terribly sore, even if I'm just out an hour. If I had to use one daily, it would take a while to get accustomed to it.

As far as the generalizations about Americans, I believe they too are unfair. There is a growing segment of the population who expects to always depend on welfare and food stamps, but on the whole, I'd still put us up against any other nation.

I grew up in a small rural town in the heartland, but still felt like the sky was the limit for what I could be/do. I've been on missions trips to other countries, and their provincial/rural areas are entirely different. Those born in rural areas of most other countries have no hope of education, and and rarely have the opportunity of doing anything different than their parents before them.

Re:not needed (1, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118187)

But saying the average American is not intelligent enough to ride a horse -- that's just elitism.

No. That's pragmatism.

The majority of Americans are no longer self sufficient and have lost "generational" knowledge that has been passed down. Did you grow up on a farm? How much information was imparted to you from your parents?

It goes for a lot more than horses.

Maybe I am a little too cynical, but unless it is something shallow and easy I just don't see the average American picking up that kind of a skill set quick enough to make a difference. There is going to be quite a learning curve. Not to mention how to cooperate with others on horses, regulations, care, etc.

Oh, I am American. Looking around at some people in the city I have serious doubts about their survival capabilities without all the technology that they have cocooned themselves with.

P.S - You cannot compare an American 200 years ago with an American 100 years ago, and most certainly not today. Take this as my cynicism, but most Americans today are that in name only. We have fallen quite a bit, and it seems like there is no end to how much farther we are going to fall.

Re:not needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39119809)

Ahh yes, the good old days when Americans were great, negroes were slaves and women couldn't vote. Americans sure have fallen far haven't they.

Newsflash: the good old days were actually a horrible oppressive time for the vast majority of people

Re:not needed (0)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#39120139)

Newsflash: Today is a horrible oppressive time for the vast majority of people.

The difference is that, as a whole, we have become far less capable through the loss of common knowledge. Knowledge that would allow you to survive a winter, make a fire, harvest crops, that kind of stuff.

We've gone soft and stupid. Truth hurts I guess.

Without a Walmart and a McDonald's I doubt the average American could survive a month.

Of course that is made worse by a progressive campaign to destroy innovation and freedom with absurdly oppressive and draconian IP laws.

Take a negro (I think African American is the proper term) today and compare him or her to their forebears and you will find they are soft, entitled, stupid, and basically far less capable of surviving without all the comforts of modern technology. That goes for any other oppressed demographic you can find, even Native Americans. Ohhh, and the White People too.

2nd Newflash: Everybody is oppressed. The illusion of one race being better off than another is just a 3rd party tactic used to divide people.

It's a full on race to make Idiocracy a documentary.

Yes, there were some bad nasty things done in America's past. Still being done today. Does not make my point about how far we have fallen any less true, or sad.

Let me ask you this, since you brought up African Americans.... why is it that African Americans (and others) fought so hard for equality and Freedom and yet take everything for granted today? Where is the million man march on Washington for a free Internet? Protests against the Patriot Act?

Nope. It's all consumerism and despair.

Real Americans fought for Freedom in WWII. Now we just pay billions of dollars for mercenaries through well connected people and corporations to uphold America's name in the world by killing women and children.

American used to mean something good. Noble. A fierce passion for Freedom, justice, and equality. What is it now?

Like I said, truth hurts. I sincerely doubt the average American could ride a horse right now if they had to do so. How could they? It's not some walled garden application on their shiny.

Re:not needed (1)

Beeftopia (1846720) | more than 2 years ago | (#39120803)

Newsflash: Today is a horrible oppressive time for the vast majority of people.

Let's keep some perspective folks: "A computer programmer from Canada faces imminent execution in Iran for the actions of another person, which he had no control over, a human rights group says. Saeed Malekpour wrote a program to upload photos to the Internet, an accomplishment that could cost him his life, Amnesty International reported Friday." Source: CNN [cnn.com]

Hyperbole has its place, but we ARE in a low intensity conflict with Sunni extremists. Like it or not, it's reality. And that has some consequences. Like the TSA and DHS.

Re:not needed (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 2 years ago | (#39123307)

Considering that the 'conflict' in question causes fatalities on par with freak bathtub accidents (which kill about 300 people per year) it seems that the TSA and DHS aren't exactly appropriate responses.

Or maybe we're lacking a bathtub inspection agency. Hey, with that we could solve whole problem with employment of voyeurs without actually having to fork out money for scanners, they could just hang around bathrooms making sure no accidents happen...

Re:not needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39124293)

99%'ers? You have your blinders on.

Re:not needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118393)

mmmm...grilled horse...I prefer mine with a sweet & tangy BBQ sauce

Re:not needed (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 2 years ago | (#39117907)

Riding a horse is incredibly easy. Anyone could understand the basic principle behind horse riding within 5 minutes. Certainly nothing to hold up on a pedestal.

You're better off sticking to the shtick that Americans are too fat and would crush the horse's back if you're going to come down on an entire nationality.

Re:not needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118127)

You're assuming the average American is smart enough to ride a horse. I doubt it.

Others have pointed out how stupid your comment is, but I'd like to add that the comment you replied to said "horse wagon". A wagon is a device you ride in behind a horse.

Re:not needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39119831)

Riding a horse is a lot like having sex with a horse. Except you're on top, not on the bottom.

Re:not needed (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39127361)

For the record, I have no fucking clue how to ride a horse or to even begin to deal with them. Have some relatives that do, but I suspect that people that can ride a horse is going to be a pretty small percentage.

My limited heresay knowledge of horse riding while mixing the metaphors a bit is its very much like "learning to be an airplane pilot" in that straight and level in good conditions in an area you already know without too many others around and no distractions is silly easy, but when times get tough you'll get kicked in the nads when you're least expecting it, and learning how to avoid that situation and/or how to survive that situation is where all the training time is spent.

Unlike cars where you throw people into them and the fatality rate is a bathtub curve, with airplanes and horses you toss people on and the fatality rate is some kind of weird long tail power distribution.

Re:not needed (1)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118011)

Yes, that was what i was going to suggest. Travel is already expensive, and TSA has made it enough of a hassle, they will put themselves out of business, and have to branch out into some other areas. Some of these they have already started, like trains, buses and trucks, but before long you will probably have to have a "auto marshall" in every car and have to have a staff of three TSA agents manning a scanner between your garage door and your car.

Re:not needed (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 2 years ago | (#39120717)

Travel is already expensive

Actually, it's not. Indexed to inflation, air travel is dramatically cheaper than it was even 30 years ago. 30 years ago there just wasn't this expectation that a family could jet here and there for (an indexed) $300.

Re:not needed (1)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124973)

Actually, it's not. Indexed to inflation, air travel is dramatically cheaper than it was even 30 years ago.
I'm sure that is true, in the 70s, air travel was the domain of the rich and not yet a standard mode of travel. However, in the 80s it became a commodity. I used to be able to travel round trip from Oklahoma City to Chicago for $100. Now it would cost me a minimum of $458, and of course they are hiding the luggage fees and other odds and ends. The final cost would be about $500. I doubt that we have had 400% inflation since 1989. My salary sure doesn't think we have. Although the price of gas is also about 4 times what it was back then.

Re:not needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39118101)

The TSA already does security theater at bus stations and train stations. Apparently they also team up with some states to stop and search POVs and trucks.

Re:not needed (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118757)

Maybe they figure with crude over $100/barrel, unemployment 25%, inflation 10%, collapse of the EU, etc, that no one will be flying, so they're planning to install prairie schooner scanners and horse wagon scanners.

If it comes with an attached shower, please decline if the option is offered.

pat downs are cheaper (3, Insightful)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#39117503)

pat downs are cheaper

Re:pat downs are cheaper (2)

xenobyte (446878) | more than 2 years ago | (#39122649)

Pat down? - Are you referring to the infamous 'Grope Search'?

It's an amazing thing that Grope Search. It's not a cavity search and yet they examine the crotch area extremely carefully, as well as the chest area on women...

Re:pat downs are cheaper (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124969)

I got one a month or so ago, and he didn't even cup my balls. I was so disappointed.

Not good enough (4, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39117529)

The new DHS budget should include no money for the TSA, period. The whole organization is an ineffective, Constitutional-rights breaking embarrassment and a waste of money.

Re:Not good enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39124549)

As someone who flies on a weekly basis, I'd be happy to go back to the days where we leave our shoes on and simply walk through a metal detector. It's not just the convenience factor. With enforced cockpit doors and the (post-9/11) reality that planes are weapons and passengers on a hijacked plane are defacto casualties rather than hostages--I just don't see the point in all the increased security. Put simply--if someone does manage to hijack a plane--the air force is going to shoot it down and ask questions later, which is exactly what they should do. Flying is still going to be safer than getting in a car on the interstate.

Re:Not good enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39127837)

The new DHS budget should include no money for the DHS , period. The whole organization is an ineffective, Constitutional-rights breaking embarrassment and a waste of money.

FTFY.

National Embarassment? (4, Interesting)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 2 years ago | (#39117557)

Seriously? In a country where reality TV is king and our presedential candidates are in the pockets of corporations, the last thing the US cares about is embarrassment.

none of the above? (1)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#39117613)

i'll go with option D: you're making up hypothetical scenarios, based on assumptions, which inevitably leads you to exclude what's really going on as an option. thanks for trying to limit my choices to just what you perceive, though! let's all make unqualified conjectures and then argue about them as if they were true! yay!

Reasoning? (4, Informative)

JobyOne (1578377) | more than 2 years ago | (#39117629)

Or does DHS just think it has enough scanners once TSA installs the 250 new scanners in this year's budget?

Probably that one. It's not like they're going to --GASP-- spend less money by not buying full body scanners. They're just going to spend that money on other [thehill.com] stupid [digitaltrends.com] stuff [homelandse...wswire.com] .

Re:Reasoning? (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119449)

Obama's proposed budget cuts $320M from the TSA's budget (6%). Obviously, money in fungible, and any dollar they do spend could have been spent on xray scanners, so it is pretty much tautological to claim that "they're going to spend that money on other stuff." But the truth is that if their budget hadn't been cut, they probably would have bought more scanners.

No, no, and no! (1)

Bodhammer (559311) | more than 2 years ago | (#39117947)

Any other questions?

It's an election year (2)

Xandrax (2451618) | more than 2 years ago | (#39117999)

Oh, the budget will get amended to include them after the elections. Political donors are invested in the company from which the government buys the machines. First rule of an election year is to understand that anything said, promised or done in favor of the citizens is an attempt to buy their votes. Once the citizens have cast the votes bought by the politicians (foolishly believing anything a politician said), everything will resume it's normal path of securing more power for the government and funneling more money to politically-connected donors.

PR, not policy (1)

reybo (2540564) | more than 2 years ago | (#39118859)

Any advanced information on supposed White House budget requests a year away are public relations. They release what they want us to believe. The DHS budget newly approved added 900 strip screeners to what they already have. That's the news that matters, fellow subjects.

They know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39119879)

Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80% of Americans access to high-speed rail, which could allow you go places in half the time it takes to travel by car. For some trips, it will be faster than flying – without the pat-down. As we speak, routes in California and the Midwest are already underway.

Excerpt from Barack Obama's Third State of the Union Address [wikisource.org] . Emphasis added.

Our politicians aren't stupid. They may make plenty of decisions you disagree with, but they are well aware of this fact. The White House never had any illusions that the TSA was not a national embarrassment.

Re:They know (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#39122665)

Is he serious? How will people be allowed on trains without a pat-down?

Maybe someone at DHS remembered WW2 (3, Interesting)

602 (652745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39120455)

The French built the "Maginot Line" of fortifications along their border with Germany--at enormous expense--between World War I and World War II. The Germans simply went around it through Belgium and defeated France in a few days. The TSA is our Maginot Line.

Re:Maybe someone at DHS remembered WW2 (1)

xenobyte (446878) | more than 2 years ago | (#39122917)

The French built the "Maginot Line" of fortifications along their border with Germany--at enormous expense--between World War I and World War II. The Germans simply went around it through Belgium and defeated France in a few days. The TSA is our Maginot Line.

Except that the Maginot Line didn't cause major annoyances and intrusions into very private areas for the general public traveling between France and Germany.

The TSA have designed their security theater to be as intrusive as possible, even though such intrusion isn't relevant nor effective in catching weapons and/or explosives. The scanners miss A LOT (70-80% misses) even where they are designed to find it, and body cavities are not scanned in any way. And none of the current measures would have spotted the 9/11 terrorists as a carbon fiber box-cutter won't be detected if hidden in the structural parts of the carry-on luggage or in body cavities.

They could do with a lot less. Drop the expensive porn scanners and the grope search. Keep the old portal metal scanners and the carry-on x-ray machines. Use pre-arrival profiling and observation during airport presence. That would catch at least 50% of the wannabe terrorists and other lunatics.

Please consider the facts. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39120759)

Rather than a knee-jerk reaction about this, there is some compelling evidence that the TSA is, forgetting everything, NOT good value for money. For the 8.1 Billion (2012 budget), you're getting some 1,035 arrests over the last five (5) years. Some 30% of which were for immigration related issues. That's approximately 145 arrests per year. If my math is right, that comes to 55.9 MILLION DOLLARS PER ARREST!!

I don't know about you, but I don't think that that is very good value for the money spent.

There's more. I travel a lot. There is virtually no consistency between airport and the rules under which each airport operates. The staff are seriously under-educated about what documentation is acceptable. If there was consistency with the management of the programs, I would not mind. However, there is not. I have met with TSA staff who are travelling (not working). They are appalled at just how badly the various rules and procedures are implemented.

Quite frankly, the whole program suffers from a serious lack of accountability. The real winners are the vendors of scanning equipment, uniforms and staffing companies.

This response is in no way meant to disparage the good men and women who are trying to make sense of this mess and who toil day in and out trying to get passengers through a seriously flawed system.

Re:Please consider the facts. (2)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#39122719)

The real winners are the vendors of scanning equipment, uniforms and staffing companies.

...and the people who made the decision to install the scanners just happen to own shares in those companies.

http://thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/5240-getting-rich-from-the-naked-body-scanners [thenewamerican.com]

Oh please. (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124123)

Did the recent scandal involving TSA workers targeting women for scans make the White House realize that TSA is a national embarrassment?

> Assuming that the DHS has any common sense at all.

Perhaps someone forgot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125193)

to make some campaign contributions.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?