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!

TSA 'Warning' Media About Reporting On Body Scanner Failures?

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the if-you-don't-have-anything-good-to-say dept.

Censorship 465

OverTheGeicoE writes "When anti-TSA activist Jonathan Corbett exposed a severe weakness in TSA's body scanners, one would expect the story to attract a lot of media attention. Apparently TSA is attempting to stop reporters from covering the story. According to Corbett, at least one reporter has been 'strongly cautioned' by TSA spokeswoman Sari Koshetz not to cover the story. If TSA is worried that this is new information they need to suppress to keep it away from terrorists, that horse may have left the barn years ago. Corbett's demonstration may just be confirmation of a 2010 paper in the Journal of Transportation Security that concluded that 'an object such as a wire or a boxcutter blade, taped to the side of the body, or even a small gun in the same location, will be invisible' to X-ray scanners."

cancel ×

465 comments

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

Warned about what? (5, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295659)

What where the consequences they where threatened with?

Re:Warned about what? (4, Insightful)

Marillion (33728) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295699)

They're probably appealing to a sense of patriotic responsibility to keep it hidden. The old "Loose Lips Sink Ships" mantra. I call BS.

BS? Barbara Streisand? (5, Funny)

HiggsBison (678319) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295837)

I call BS.

I was wondering who would bring up the Barbara Streisand Effect first.

So now, Barbara Streisand is a Terrorist!

Re:BS? Barbara Streisand? (4, Funny)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296349)

Oh yes, didn't you know? Between gigs, she flies her pink six-wheeled Ford to some island in the Pacific, where she sips Pernod by the pool, and launches rocket planes with tiny puppet vigilantes in them who terrorise world governments and bring Freedom to their asses.

Re:Warned about what? (5, Funny)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296157)

But I thought that if we see something, we're supposed to say something?

Re:Warned about what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39296287)

So much crap over nothing. They'll just start snapping a sideways picture as well. In most places it's still a crap shoot if you're going through backscatter or metal detectors anyways.

Re:Warned about what? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39295705)

I imagine it was more the TSA spreading disinformation, telling the media outlets that there was nothing to worry about.

Re:Warned about what? (5, Insightful)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295739)

Guantanimo? Enemy combatants? Declared enemies of the state by the Pres., shot in the head and buried in an unmarked grave?

Unlikely, yes. But now "legal" under Bush/Obama.

Re:Warned about what? (4, Interesting)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295757)

Sorry, but a private citizen with no legal enforcement power (which TSA is and lacks) can not declare you an enemy of the state and have you sent to Guantanamo.

have you read The Interrogators (4, Interesting)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295855)

because thats pretty much what happened in Afghanistan in 2002, and how we got people like Khalid Sheik Mohammad put in the same facility with random teenagers and goat herders.

Re:Warned about what? (5, Insightful)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295973)

The "having you killed" suggestion is overblown, but I'm sure the TSA could realistically add you to No-Fly lists, just because.

Re:Warned about what? (5, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296155)

Actually, they cant. But they could recommend to Homeland Security that you be added, and odds are they would just rubber stamp it.

Re:Warned about what? (1)

ddtracy (2565031) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296063)

But they sure can make it hell to try to fly...

Re:Warned about what? (5, Insightful)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295755)

When a three letter agency cautions you with unspecified malice, even if they can't (yet) drag you out of your house at night, you know they can make your life difficult...

Re:Warned about what? (2, Funny)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295773)

But the TSA is no more a "three letter agency" then TWA is.

Re:Warned about what? (5, Informative)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295907)

They can send you to jail for not cooperating [nydailynews.com] (or even citing the constitution at them) [ajc.com] , prevent you from traveling freely [cbsnews.com] and deny you the right to exit the country. They can put you on watch lists that make the "more traditional" TLA's pay attention to you. And their influence [forbes.com] is [publicintelligence.net] spreading [tsa.gov] .

So, yes, they are.

Re:Warned about what? (5, Interesting)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296139)

The more citizens who fight the system, the harder it is for them to do any of that. What happens if/when there are 10,000,000 names on the Do Not Fly list?

Whatever happened to the principles the US was founded on? "Live Free or Die," "Don't Tread On Me," "Liberty or Death?" We've become a country of Bread and Circuses consuming, Entitlement gratified proles.

Re:Warned about what? (3, Insightful)

pkinetics (549289) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296299)

10k names is a small number to search against. Takes seconds on a properly implemented and maintained db and app.

My point is that the TSA doesn't give a rats arse how many people on the list there are. They would be just as happy if there were 100k, even if it meant there 95% false positives. It would just mean more justification for their existence.

Never assume a bureaucratic organization will always exist for the sake of the people. It eventually evolves to the point where its existence is its existence.

Plants need electrolytes because plants need electrolytes.

Re:Warned about what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39296159)

And when that happens, you are no longer in a 'free Democracy', if the USA was ever one to begin with.

TSA is slowly becoming what the KGB was in post WWII Russia. It starts with verbal intimidation and warnings, and leads to citizens whisked away in the night to unknown locations. It ends under revolution or the country collapsing.

Could never happen here, right? Just keep quiet and don't speak your $.02 on this matter. See how easy complacency is?

Re:Warned about what? (5, Funny)

jonamous++ (1687704) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296279)

Except the KGB actually had some badasses in it. Have you seen TSA agents? I could make a run for it and still get on the plane, stow my carry-on and calmly wait for takeoff before they managed to make it to the gate.

ask Thomas Drake, Stephen Kim, (2)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295843)

Shamai Leibowitz, Jeffrey Sterling, Siobhan Gorman, Diane Roark, and Jesselyn Radack.

Re:Warned about what? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296011)

You wouldn't want to lose you access, would you?

Re:Warned about what? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39296049)

Totally by coincidence your tax returns get audited. If you have kids, child protection services shows up at your door with complaints about child abuse. Every time you do a rolling stop a cop is right there to give you a ticket. As a journalist, every time you try to attend a press conference there seems to be no more space left, sorry. Your usual contacts at the police force run out of scoops to feed you. If you try to cover a protest you're one of the first to be arrested. The list goes on... None of which has any relation to the fact that you covered an "unpopular" story, of course.

Re:Warned about what? (2)

ddtracy (2565031) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296061)

Retroactive retracting of "freedom" of press...

Re:Warned about what? (1)

SpockLogic (1256972) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296083)

What where the consequences they where threatened with?

He's got 'em on the list — he's got 'em on the list;
And they'll none of 'em be missed — they'll none of 'em be missed.

Warning? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39295681)

Too bad I can't warn this minimum wage TSA goon not to touch my wife's goodies or get bit so hard that blood is drawn.

Oh the irony, the blood will have to be left in a container lest someone uses it to blow up the plane.

Probably not suppressed for Terrorists. (4, Insightful)

macaran (766186) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295691)

I would kind of suspect they know terrorists are already aware of the vulnerability, more likely they just don't want random Joe smoe smuggling a miniaturized gun onboard because he can, and then having an armed civilian on the flight if something goes wrong in the air.

Re:Probably not suppressed for Terrorists. (5, Insightful)

zlives (2009072) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295709)

or that we the sheep might object to yet more tax dollars spent on perceived security...

Re:Probably not suppressed for Terrorists. (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296047)

What terrorists?

Re:Probably not suppressed for Terrorists. (2)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296151)

You mean they *don't* want passengers to overpower and kill any terrorists if they show up on a flight? Sorry sir, you killed this terrorist without a license, that will be a $5000 fine, and a televised apology on FOX to the viewers who were hoping to see the White House ablaze.

Easy fix? (5, Insightful)

casualsax3 (875131) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295697)

Aside from just scrapping them entirely, wouldn't this be a non-issue if they just had the traveler rotate 90 degrees and repeated the scan?

Re:Easy fix? (5, Insightful)

Marillion (33728) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295715)

Oh sure. So you're advocating doubling the radiation dosage from a device that more than a few radiation experts are concerned about. Various pilot unions are very concerned about the amount of radiation their members are being exposed to.

Re:Easy fix? (4, Insightful)

casualsax3 (875131) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295769)

No, I think the entire program should be scrapped both because of the health hazards, and because it's a gross invasion of privacy. If they're hell bent on keeping it around though, the least they could do is make it work properly. I'd rather be exposed to a double dose of radiation if it actually made me safer, as opposed to the status quo which is one shot for theater's sake.

Re:Easy fix? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39295897)

Even if it was working as advertised, was free, didn't inconvenience you at all, wasn't an illegal search, and didn't have health risks... would it actually make you safer?

Re:Easy fix? (5, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295931)

A double dose of cyanide will completely prevent any future terrorists from harming you.

Re:Easy fix? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39295939)

Honestly, I feel bad for the people who work around the machines. There's no shielding. When TSA agents start getting cancer, part of me will feel bad for them. But part of me will be laughing hysterically.

Re:Easy fix? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39296001)

The radiation dosage received from the scanner is still less than what you get from the flight itself. If you are that worried about radiation, you probably don't want to be on the plane in the first place.

Re:Easy fix? (4, Interesting)

Mitreya (579078) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296313)

The radiation dosage received from the scanner is still less than what you get from the flight itself. If you are that worried about radiation, you probably don't want to be on the plane in the first place.

Ok, two things:
1. I need to get from A to B when I get on the plane. There is a perceived benefit and there is some incurred cost. Seeing how not a single one of these machines is know to have stopped a single terrorist, there is no perceived benefit to match going through the machine
2. You say that radiation dose is miniscule. TSA says that radiation dose is miniscule. Others say that due to improper calibration (how many of TSA employees are qualified to calibrate a medlical-like device?) or due to other factors the radiation received may be 10X or 100X higher than the "optimal". TSA had refused to do a health study, so even assuming I trust everyone equally, that's a 50-50 risk that TSA assertion is wrong.

Re:Easy fix? (1)

Isaac Remuant (1891806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296341)

Source?

Re:Easy fix? (2)

macaran (766186) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295725)

Someone who has actually used one of these could probably confirm or deny this, but I believe they are designed to just have people walk through them in an orderly fashion to not hold up lines. If everyone stopped and did a little ballerina turn in them it would slow things down immensely. Also that would detect things sewn into clothing, but probably not thin things like wires taped to the body.

Re:Easy fix? (5, Informative)

HolyCrapSCOsux (700114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295813)

That's what metal detectors do. I fly a lot. these go thusly:
wait, get in, put your feet on the prints (rotated 90 degrees from normal walking direction), hold up your arms
wait for the scanner to swipe through it's arc.
get out
wait on another set of footprints

total time 20-45 seconds per scan.

Re:Easy fix? (5, Informative)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295967)

Someone who has actually used one of these could probably confirm or deny this...

As someone who has actually used one of these (many times), my answer is a solid "deny". You don't just walk through these scanners the way you do with the metal detectors. You walk in, turn to the side, spread your legs, put your hands in the air, and hold that position for about five seconds. They slow down the lines immensely. If you then had to turn another 90 degrees and hold for another five seconds, it would make things even worse.

Considering that the scanners don't even detect the sort of threat they were rolled out in response to (the underwear bomber), they should just be scrapped entirely, and the government should do everything in its power to find a loophole in the contract to get some of our money back.

Re:Easy fix? (4, Informative)

NixieBunny (859050) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296215)

Better yet, they could change the background to be white instead of black by changing the reflective properties of the material behind the person, thereby allowing metal strapped to one's sides to stand out.

But I work on millimeter waves in my day job, so don't believe a word I say.

Re:Easy fix? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39296335)

How would you do that with a backscatter x-ray machine though? Remember, there are two types of these machines and many of them use x-rays rather than millimeter waves (which should be much safer).

Re:Easy fix? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39295745)

Aside from just scrapping them entirely, wouldn't this be a non-issue if they just had the traveler rotate 90 degrees and repeated the scan?

I like the first option.
I mean, seriously, they built a 3D scanner using a booth! How does it cover just one direction of view? Why don't they also have each passenger do some Tai Chi forms to get all the angles right?

Re:Easy fix? (1)

russ_allegro (444120) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295925)

How would rotating 90 degrees prevent you from putting something on the inner thigh leg or arm? They would need to make something that you straddle and scan between the legs and arms. I'd imagine there is actually some material you can use around the object to show as skin anyway.

Re:Easy fix? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39296009)

That would only find imaginary bombs.

Re:Easy fix? (1)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296025)

Better yet, have the person stand at a random angle. Either facing the scanner, 90 degrees left or right, or 45 degrees.

Since the person to be screened will have no idea where to hide their contraband to avoid it being detected, the scanners are once again effective.

However, I'd like to see the scanners scrapped so we can return to tried-and-true metal detectors. Primarily because I hate having to take off my belt!

I have an easier fix (4, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296045)

Use the fucking metal detectors that are already there! They work great. They'll pick up any gun, even a small one. No, there is no gun that has no metal in it (nor bullets). What's more metal detectors are 100% within the range of TSA intelligence to use: Green = person ok, go through. Red + beep = person not ok. Even the untrained morons in the TSA can deal with that. The scanners though, they require knowledge an interpretation. You are presented with an image and you have to interpret it.

That is why so many people get sent for patdowns. Not because they found something but because they can't tell what they fuck they are looking at. They can't interpret the results.

The answer is in what they already have. Metal detectors work great. There's a reason why people like, say, the Secret Service uses metal detectors, and not these scanners.

Re:Easy fix? (0)

Wovel (964431) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296095)

You must work for he TSA.

TSA has this covered. (5, Funny)

Xandrax (2451618) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295731)

Much like the underwear bomber, TSA has this all planned out.

1. Allow terrorist onboard with a weapon hidden at his side.
2. Civilians on plane stop terrorist when he attempts to take over plane.
3. TSA announces that the system worked.

These "reporters" are clearly interfering with step #1.

Stupid constitution. (5, Insightful)

zippo01 (688802) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295743)

Conversation between TSA and reporter. TSA:You really don't want to run that story about the billions wasted on ineffective airport body scanners. On a side note I hear Guantanamo Bay is nice this time of year, me and the wife are thinking of taking a trip. Reporter: Don't I have constitutional rights of free speech and what not. TSA: Don't worry about that. I mean, we ignored them when we put the scanners in anyway, didn't we. Reporter: Oh yeah.

the TSA is unconstitutional as heck! (4, Insightful)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295753)

not only are they searching people without probable cause, the airlines should be left to police themselves so the tax payers wont have to pay for it, let the airline customers pay for it...

I will stay away from the airports if the TSA stays out of my pants, and I refuse to step in to your xray cancer machines.

Re:the TSA is unconstitutional as heck! (2)

HolyCrapSCOsux (700114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295839)

I think you meant "until" instead of "if"

Re:the TSA is unconstitutional as heck! (1)

odie5533 (989896) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295857)

I think it is in our best interests to regulate and police the airlines. We aren't doing the best job of it, but I'd rather not leave it up to profiteering individuals to self-regulate.

The public pays some of the expensive because we as a society want our airlines secure for the general public. We also want to be able to use the aircrafts during possible emergency situations, so we have the CRAF [wikipedia.org] as well.

Re:the TSA is unconstitutional as heck! (3, Insightful)

BoberFett (127537) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295895)

You don't think the airlines have a vested interest in keeping their planes from falling out of the sky?

Re:the TSA is unconstitutional as heck! (5, Insightful)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296075)

yes i do, thats why airline security should be privatized and run by the airlines themselves at the expense of the airlines/customers and not the tax payers, the TSA is just another expensive bloated ineffective bureaucracy we all have to pay for

Re:the TSA is unconstitutional as heck! (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296029)

Why not? Obviously they have a vested interest in making sure that terrorists aren't blowing their planes out of the sky. Put the culpability on them where there can actually be some sort of reaction by the public. As it is now, if a terrorist sneaks through and we have another terrorist attack, what are we gonna get? "Oops, we'll do a thorough investigation, shift a few people around to other departments, and do absolutely fuck all to make sure it doesn't happen again. Sorry America!!"

Any airline that skimps on security won't be able to insure their planes, not to mention the liability for all the wrongful death due to negligence suits that would follow. You think they would take a chance on that happening? I doubt it. The TSA goon with the plastic badge doesn't give a flying fuck. Believe me, I know. I proctored the TSA testing for years, and I assure you, 'test' is a bit of a stretch, not to mention the fact that half the people that sat for the test were either covered in gang tattoos or looked like the "after" pic on those "this is what crystal meth does to you" photos...

I'm not one of those "privatize everything" people, but the TSA is a fucking joke that should be completely defunded and disbanded. Putting active-duty military in there with dogs and SMGs would be more of a deterrent than the TSA and the scanners, and we're already paying them anyway.

Re:the TSA is unconstitutional as heck! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39295945)

Who do you think was 'policing" this when 911 happened?

Re:the TSA is unconstitutional as heck! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39296069)

Unconstitutional as heck!

Daggummit, you're surely right! Hot diggatty do, you are!

And I agree the airlines should handle security. And what I would hope would happen is that those of who've flown often without an incident would get nothing but a "Yes, sir! Welcome aboard!" for a security screening.

Damn straight!

Oops, sorry for cussing.

Hope they don't consider my Facebook feed "media" (1)

hawks5999 (588198) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295759)

Cuz that would make me threatened.

They're hardly perfect (5, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295785)

I remember back in 2002 I had this huge inner door house key, like really big old fashioned solid iron thing. It ended up being in my pocket as I walked through the metal detector, so I just clenched it in my palm thinking I'll have to show it anyway. Passed right through, not a beep. It was big enough it'd easily be the blade of a pretty good knife. And it beeped for some other passengers so it wasn't defective either. Of course this was after 9/11 so everybody was on their toes, I showed it to a friend and he was like "Seriously? You got to be kidding me..." but it happened.

Re:They're hardly perfect (2, Informative)

PRMan (959735) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295845)

If the key were brass or bronze, there would be very little iron to pick up for a hunk of metal for that size and weight.

Re:They're hardly perfect (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296053)

Luckily, neither brass nor bronze are of any value for either holding an edge or inflicting blunt trauma...

And no need to even mention ceramics or the fancier plastics, that shit is totally harmless.

Re:They're hardly perfect (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296297)

Luckily, neither brass nor bronze are of any value for either holding an edge or inflicting blunt trauma...

Brass knuckles?

Re:They're hardly perfect (4, Informative)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296091)

They aren't iron detectors, they are metal detectors.

In fact, they'd detect bronze better than steel.

can't you also make plastic shivs? (1)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295883)

i mean dont prisoners make plastic weapons all the time out of toothbrushes and stuff?

Re:can't you also make plastic shivs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39295949)

You can just break a CD in half and you've got yourself a pretty nice blade. But they don't really care so this is all academic.

Re:They're hardly perfect (3, Interesting)

asher09 (1684758) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295917)

Since I work in a lab, I use razor blades for many different reasons. I used to keep one in my wallet for convenience. Then I forgot about it when I went through security at an airport, and I got through it no problem with my razor blade on the flight! This was right after 9/11 like early 2002, I think.

Re:They're hardly perfect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39296251)

My brother in law accidentally flew with a loaded gun in his carry on bag a couple years ago. He's DEA, so he probably wouldn't have been thrown in jail if they noticed it, but he wasn't on the job, he was taking a fucking vacation to DisneyWorld and passed through the same (in)security as everyone else.

Re:They're hardly perfect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39295983)

I sometimes wonder if the detectors are actually running or if someone is just sitting there hitting a button at random to make it beep when people walk through.

Re:They're hardly perfect (5, Interesting)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296101)

Man, I once got through with a few unused razor blades in my carry-on I had left there by mistake. I don't know if it was the cardboard covering or what, but they weren't even inside my bag, it was one of those backpacks with the mesh pockets and you could see them right through it. Got right through.

Meanwhile, my sister-in-law, who is permanently disabled due to being wounded in Iraq, has 10 pounds of metal in her leg, and has to walk with a cane, she gets a ration of shit every single fucking time we go through the airport. They try to take not only her cane, but her damn knee brace every single time, saying it could be used as a weapon, but the best part is, when she complains and makes a scene, they always wave her through, which really makes me want to ask (if I wanted to end up in a windowless room when my plane takes off, that is): If it truly could be used as a weapon and is dangerous, why the fuck is complaining enough to get waved through? And if it's not, why the fuck do they stop her and try to take it from her every time she goes through security?

The TSA is a fucking joke...

Re:They're hardly perfect (1)

dbet (1607261) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296173)

That's nothing. Ceramic blades don't show up at all, either on the metal detector or on the body scan. I mean, a blade big enough to be considered a sword would not show up at all. Want to stop terrorism on planes? Stop pissing people off to the point that they want to kill a whole plane full of people.

hello tsa: (1)

gale the simple (1931540) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295807)

First impulse, I almost immediately forwarded the link to the friendly local radio host.

Second impulse, now I am sure I am going to drive to New York instead of flying( I was a little on the fence because gf was complaining )

Still,. FTG

Re:hello tsa: (4, Funny)

Voogru (2503382) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295841)

Don't worry, they will have their checkpoints soon enough so they can grope her.

Re:hello tsa: (1)

gale the simple (1931540) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296003)

I wonder. Unless they are assisted by police can they actually stop me?

Terminal is a tricky area, especially an international one, but a public road?:P

Just an honest question..

Nothing to see here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39295881)

Move along citizen before we grope you.

Where is the text? (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295891)

I'm interested to see the text of this email. It's hard to judge just how egregious this behavior is without seeing the actual text.

Not Surprised (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39295901)

I recently went through a major southeast U.S. airport. When I stated my desire to opt out of the millimeter scanner, the TSA agent tried to convince me otherwise. When I stated my desire to opt out again, she deadpan "joked" it is $20 extra screening fee for a pat down (but relented after a further exchange). I would not be surprised if supervisors suggested their agents try that to discourage as many people from opting out as possible to make the numbers look better in their favor.

Re:Not Surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39295979)

When I stated my desire to opt out of the millimeter scanner, the TSA agent tried to convince me otherwise. When I stated my desire to opt out again, she deadpan "joked" it is $20 extra screening fee for a pat down (but relented after a further exchange).

So the price she wanted to charge you for being forced to grope at your sorry body is $20. Maybe if you were hot, maybe she'd pay you $20...

FoxNews is covering the story (5, Informative)

McGruber (1417641) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295919)

Re:FoxNews is covering the story (5, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296191)

Obama is president, which means government is bad. As soon as a Republican is in the White House, government will go back to being good.

That is, according to Fox.

False Modesty (-1, Flamebait)

WombleGoneBad (2591287) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295951)

What is the slashdot rage against body scanners all about anyway? Are you all a bunch of attractive young ladies who constantly have to worry about security guard perverts? When I was young i used to get body searched just going into shops in town (which was normal at the time where i lived), so i really dont see what the fuss is about.

Re:False Modesty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39296005)

Hello, fellow time traveller. Care to share your secrets?

Re:False Modesty (2)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296167)

1) not wanting to bow to authoritarian pigs

2) not wanting to die of skin cancer

Re:False Modesty (1)

metacell (523607) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296347)

Perhaps people are just upset about incompetence and having their freedoms violated?

TSA needs to be disbanded with prejudice (4, Insightful)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295961)

The TSA needs to be disbanded at once with prejudice. It is nothing but kabuki theater masking fascism. It has no place in the America of our founders.

Re:TSA needs to be disbanded with prejudice (1, Insightful)

ks*nut (985334) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296257)

The America of our founders? You mean the one that practised slavery and genocide. Is that the wonderful past you are referring to? Be careful what you base your opposition to TSA on.

Ready? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39295975)

Can't we just start killing these bastards yet?

Re:Ready? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39296275)

The answer is completely contingent upon one's willingness to accept the consequences...which consequences are you more concerned about?

TSA perversion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39295999)

So these scanners are really just for checking out people they wanna see naked since they can't actually detect weapons. Way to waste more money America. Why not buy a million diamond encrusted toilets next? Idiots

It is not about the truth it is about perception (4, Interesting)

cygtoad (619016) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296023)

The TSA doesn't care if the backscatter scanner doesn't detect contraband. They don't even care if the terrorists know it. They don't want the general public at large knowing it because this kind of thing really messes up the security theater magic act. They also don't want to answer the accusations of exposing passengers to radiation for a less than perfect technology.

I saw a sign in the airport las weekend. "The backscatter scanner exposes you the same amount of radiation as you receive in two minutes in the airplane". Yeah but think of it this way; standing on a beach on a sunny day would you accept someone telling you that you were going to get a sun blast equal to two minutes in the sun in two seconds? Radiation doesn't always hurt bit it is always harmful to your DNA. There is a reason heath care providers put a limit on the number of X-rays you get in year.

No problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39296027)

Just tell the reporters that the story would hurt Obama and they'll clam up.

who (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39296065)

cares about TSA?

Osama must be laughing in his grave. (5, Insightful)

Brad1138 (590148) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296105)

Could he have ever imagined the repercussions of his attack. On so many levels, from more government ie: the dept of Home land security, to the ridiculousness of what we have to go through to fly. The whole country (or at least government) running around worrying about terrorists and the incredible expense it incurs. Our image around the world.... It goes on and on. He single-handedly turned the the U.S. into a near bankrupt, joke.

Re:Osama must be laughing in his grave. (4, Insightful)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296217)

didn't you listen to Bush.

they hate us for our freedoms

if we eliminate all our freedoms they won't hate us anymore

Known issue (2)

TankSpanker04 (1266400) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296161)

TSA is just pissed someone exposed a known design flaw in the hardware they use and now they're trying to minimize public knowledge of it.

call them what they are (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39296193)

They are not body scanners. They are xray scanners. The only reason they call them 'body scanners' is to confuse people, because people know what xrays are, and people know that xrays are dangerous. But what is a body scanner? People don't know. Call it what it is. A dangerous xray machine that is being irresponsibly used on the public for the enrichment of the private companies OSI and Rapiscan.

Threat (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#39296369)

at least one reporter has been 'strongly cautioned' by TSA spokeswoman Sari Koshetz not to cover the story.

Or else what? They'll be put on the no fly list? Singled out for additional screening at airports? So then TSA procedures are really just some sort of punishment or retribution. Misbehave and they'll have the guy with the fat fingers do your next cavity search.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?