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!

Mother Found Guilty After Protesting TSA Pat-down of Daughter

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the guess-it's-not-political-speech dept.

Your Rights Online 652

Penurious Penguin writes "In 2011, en route to Baltimore, Tennessee mother Andrea Abbott was arrested after squabbling with the TSA over their pat-down and "naked" body-scan process. Initially Abbott had protested a pat-down of her 14 year-old daughter, though eventually backed off. When her own turn came, she refused both a pat-down and body-scan. This week, despite having no criminal record, Abbott was found guilty of disorderly conduct and sentenced to one year of probation. A surveillance video of the affair shows what appears an agitated Abbott surrounded by various TSA agents, but seemingly contradicts the premise by which she was convicted. In the case against Abbott it was claimed that her behavior impeded the flow security-lines and lawful activity. Beyond Abbott's confession of issuing some verbal abuse, the video does not appear to display a significant blockage of traffic nor anything noticeably criminal."

cancel ×

652 comments

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

Guilty of not doing as she was told. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775253)

Scum like that should be executed!

Re:Guilty of not doing as she was told. (5, Informative)

Cryacin (657549) | about 2 years ago | (#41775265)

Remember, next time it's room 101 for you Ma'am.

Re:Guilty of not doing as she was told. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775697)

Just vote Repubmocrat for more of the same treatment. The longer the TSA operates, the longer they have to refine authoritarian tyranny.

Re:Guilty of not doing as she was told. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775753)

And seriously, trying to prevent there goons- I mean upstanding respectable employees, from copping a feel- I mean patting down an underaged girl- I mean a potential terrorist...

What is this world coming to?

Actually, what I found sad, is she spent more effort on preventing it herself than for her daughter.

No crime? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775261)

She didn't want to be fondled by total strangers in public. There's your crime right there!

Romney & Obama - Do they support pat down? (5, Interesting)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 2 years ago | (#41775291)

Let this be a test case for the tweedledee and tweedledum, who wants the job at the White House so badly --- do they support a public fondl... [ahem] a pat down of a 14 year old American girl, in an American air port?

Re:Romney & Obama - Do they support pat down? (4, Insightful)

Cryacin (657549) | about 2 years ago | (#41775495)

I think you might find that yes, yes they do. For the sake of the children.

Re:Romney & Obama - Do they support pat down? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775601)

Isn't sake made from rice and not from children?

Re:Romney & Obama - Do they support pat down? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775673)

Where do you think rice comes from?

Re:Romney & Obama - Do they support pat down? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775689)

I think you might find that yes, yes they do. For the sake of the children.

If by "children" you mean billions in defense spending at our airports, then yes, they're thinking of the children alright.

Re:Romney & Obama - Do they support pat down? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775691)

Romney wants the TSA to touch MORE people...

Just ask him! Security is more important than freedom to the Republicans.

Re:No crime? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775353)

Ordinary officials around airports know how to move problematic individuals to the back room for a non-public inspection and know how to inform of the responsibilities of the passengers and those of the officials, and which laws those responsibilities are based on. These were apparently not our ordinary officials, but extraordinary ones.

Re:No crime? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775707)

Ordinary officials around airports know how to move problematic individuals to the back room for a non-public inspection and know how to inform of the responsibilities of the passengers and those of the officials, and which laws those responsibilities are based on. These were apparently not our ordinary officials, but extraordinary ones.

Correction. They were the extraordinary ones. Now that this case has been made and precedent set, it does nothing but pave the path for the abuses of the extraordinary to become ordinary.

This process is also commonly known as death by 1,000 cuts, and has been the tactic of policymakers for the last 30 years.

Re:No crime? (5, Insightful)

stoofa (524247) | about 2 years ago | (#41775393)

"There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." (from Orwell's 1984)

Not criminal? (5, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#41775269)

the video does not appear to display a significant blockage of traffic nor anything noticeably criminal.

She was defying the TSA.

If they let her get away with it then pretty soon other people would be defying them, too. All protesters must be stamped on, hard.

Re:Not criminal? (5, Insightful)

NettiWelho (1147351) | about 2 years ago | (#41775335)

One would think that in the land of the free those kind of shenanigans would only provoke a stronger response from the populace..

Re:Not criminal? (5, Insightful)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about 2 years ago | (#41775359)

The terrorists won years ago. They even elect them.

Re:Not criminal? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775409)

They're the ones who made all that shit up.

Seriously. Man in cavern in middle east. Has rusty Rifle.

Response: billions of dollars in (crony built) weapons. Crazy laws outlawing all manner of protest and enforced by (crony built) equipment and forces.

You lost before you knew you were playing.

Re:Not criminal? (5, Insightful)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about 2 years ago | (#41775705)

America, you had it right before everyone else did. Take it back.
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Benjamin Franklin

Re:Not criminal? (1, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#41775701)

Romney has not been elected yet.

Re:Not criminal? (5, Insightful)

BorgDrone (64343) | about 2 years ago | (#41775369)

You forget it is also the home of the brave. Where 'brave' means so scared of the extremely remote chance you might be the victim of terrorism that they gladly give up their freedoms.

Land of the oppressed, home of the cowards.

Re:Not criminal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775667)

Man you had the perfect chance to make a flippant "You will comply." post and you had to go and write something cogent instead.

People just don't know how to Internet anymore.

Re:Not criminal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775375)

One would think that in the land of the free those kind of shenanigans would only provoke a stronger response from the populace..

Silly rabbit! The Land of the free is a fairy story for children.

Re:Not criminal? (2)

Quakeulf (2650167) | about 2 years ago | (#41775643)

In the fighting game community the American people are mockingly referred to as free because in fighting game terminology a free person means someone who doesn't put up a fight.

Re:Not criminal? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775413)

One would think that in the land of the free those kind of shenanigans would only provoke a stronger response from the populace..

It's OK, as long as everyone has a gun they will prevent the government from overstepping its bounds.

Re:Not criminal? (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#41775441)

One would think that in the land of the free those kind of shenanigans would only provoke a stronger response from the populace..

Normally these acts would have people screaming, calling police, lawyers, etc.

But ... the government knows that most people with a 'plane to catch will choose 20 seconds of utter humiliation over a 30-minute confrontation with big brother.

If the people got their act together and organized themselves the TSA would be shut down in a week. Unfortunately most of them have already set up the cognitive dissonances that the government planned for them.

Re:Not criminal? (5, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 2 years ago | (#41775479)

The TSA is no longer about security, or even security theater. It is now a jobs program. Can't kill the TSA because that means 60000 more unemployment people, all of whom will be pissed off at whatever administration does it.

Re:Not criminal? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775799)

You should have them clean the airport toilets and floors. Would be usefull, and would promote tourism instead of scaring the people like me who would like to visit USA but won't because you have become damn scary in the past 10 years.

Re:Not criminal? (4, Insightful)

sociocapitalist (2471722) | about 2 years ago | (#41775523)

One would think that in the land of the free those kind of shenanigans would only provoke a stronger response from the populace..

They might, if more of said populace were still educated and had their eyes open to what's happening instead of sitting fat and happy in front of their sports programs.

Re:Not criminal? (5, Insightful)

pla (258480) | about 2 years ago | (#41775647)

instead of sitting fat and happy in front of their sports programs.

...Or reading/posting to Slashdot about it. ;)

Re:Not criminal? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775537)

Look up bread and circuses

Re:Not criminal? (5, Insightful)

contrarywise (1981398) | about 2 years ago | (#41775599)

I'm a European and I will not be vacationing in the US. Not much of a sanction, just a few thousand dollars less in the US economy, but what do you expect me to do - declare war on the buggers?

Re:Not criminal? (5, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#41775715)

As an american, I strongly suggest that anyone from outside to not visit us. This is a Police State, we like tromping on freedoms here. and they treat non citizens WORSE than citizens.

Your money is better spent in a Free country like Canada.

Re:Not criminal? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775795)

No fuckhead, this is not a police state. Having worked wtih US LE, the US is not a police state, even int he worst of cases. The reason not to go to the US is the buggered up customs process, which takes 4 hours.

Re:Not criminal? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775725)

The band I play in were offered a potentially lucrative American tour last year. But we decided that we didn't want to be subjected to the Stasi like "security" theatre and politely declined.

So that's two of us at least who aren't going to play nicely with the goons. Got to start somewhere :)

Re:Not criminal? (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | about 2 years ago | (#41775781)

Ditto. I have also refused freelance work there for the same reason.

Re:Not criminal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775557)

In essense we should not be able to more or less peacefully affect a change in our society by disagreeing with the authorities and the authorities should carry the weight and power of a judge.

They could have issue'd her a ticket and let her move along without groping her.

But no. They are just thugs with no real legal sanction except this B.S. case were they tried her under anything they could get and the judge and jury were moronic to convict and not nullify or at least throw it out.

America... (4, Insightful)

Zemran (3101) | about 2 years ago | (#41775271)

... Land of the Freedom to abuse

Agitated? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775287)

Speed up a video, and everybody appears "agitated"!

fat people (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775309)

Well, the staff and she are fat so when they group up like that it impedes the other fat people trying to get around.

Re:fat people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775371)

Insightful?
Slashdot's moderation is pathetic these days.

Re:fat people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775445)

It was probably just his/her dangling blubberous jowl that bumped the mouse by accident and hit Insightful. AC was probably just reaching for more potato chips and sodapop while salivating over a crumb on the keyboard.

Of course it's a crime! (5, Insightful)

temcat (873475) | about 2 years ago | (#41775311)

She wanted to deny the TSA staff their legal right to watch naked 14 yo girls!

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.... (5, Insightful)

novium (1680776) | about 2 years ago | (#41775323)

Questioning the system will get you in trouble every time. It helps make sure that the cost of complaining or asserting your rights or asking for consideration or doing anything but keeping your head down and doing whatever you're told is too high compared to the (relatively) momentary discomfort and inconvenience. And it's pretty effective too. I know my rights- in encounters with the police, or when going through security at the airport - but when if a cop stopped me for no reason walking to the store (as frequently happens to my sister) and demanded to see my ID or search my bag....I can't say I wouldn't do exactly as she does and just go with it. I certainly do with the TSA's nonsense. The possibility of getting dragged off for some bullshit reason is a good threat. Even if it doesn't stick, it still sucked. You still endangered your job/vacation/whatever.

Re:Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775435)

hmm

I guess I'd have to fire myself (self employed).

I could probably keep my business going for a month or more if held in jail.

What is sad here (-1, Troll)

Spectrumanalyzer (2733849) | about 2 years ago | (#41775329)

is that the woman doesn't understand they're doing this for her and other peoples safety.

Obviously we who dont carry weapons or explosives around with us know that we are clean and free, but no one else knows this, that's why these things are needed. I would personally prefer this "humiliation" to losing one of my family members because one woman would rather be free from the pat-downs/security scanning etc.

When was the last time you heard of an airplane hijack after we pumped up security? Uncomfortable, yes. Bothersome - heck yeah. But we live.

Re:What is sad here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775347)

Wanna know how I know you're a troll?

Re:What is sad here (1)

Spectrumanalyzer (2733849) | about 2 years ago | (#41775723)

Let me guess...

Because you want to brighten up my day, make sure that I fly straight and improve my life?

Re:What is sad here (2)

l3v1 (787564) | about 2 years ago | (#41775367)

When was the last time you heard of an airplane hijack after we pumped up security?

Yupp, the bear patrol is working like a charm.

Re:What is sad here (5, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#41775379)

Yes, I do suppose this logic is "interesting."

I would personally prefer this "humiliation" to losing one of my family members because one woman would rather be free from the pat-downs/security scanning etc.

So you're saying you'd rather have everyone who wants to get on a plane have their privacy violated because you're afraid of the minuscule chance that a terrorist might attack? I guess privacy isn't important at all as long as you can have your security theater.

But how about we install surveillance cameras in everyone's homes? It's for your own safety and could stop a few crimes, so it's all worth it. Rights mean nothing at all.

When was the last time you heard of an airplane hijack after we pumped up security?

When was the last time you heard of an airplane hijack since I received my anti-terrorist rock?

And more than likely, it's not because of the TSA's security theater, but because of secured cockpit doors and the willingness of citizens to fight back.

Re:What is sad here (2)

jawtheshark (198669) | about 2 years ago | (#41775443)

So you're saying you'd rather have everyone who wants to get on a plane have their privacy violated because you're afraid of the minuscule chance that a terrorist might attack? I guess privacy isn't important at all as long as you can have your security theater.

Hey, I have an idea: why not just force everyone to fly naked!

Re:What is sad here (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#41775661)

Only if they install stripper poles for the flight attendants. I wouldn't want to be objected to that much unscripted nudity. Fat ugly hairy bodies everywhere.

Re:What is sad here (2)

jawtheshark (198669) | about 2 years ago | (#41775755)

I'm not so sure, I'd want that either. After 9/11, I noticed an increase of ugly male flight attendants. The hot female flight attendants, seem to be a thing of the past.

Re:What is sad here (3, Interesting)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | about 2 years ago | (#41775501)

Actually, despite the massively unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is because the US chose to fight jihadis on foreign soil. Both Iraq and (especially) Afghanistan are fights out of the way of the general US populace and suck up jihadis from all over the World into a meat grinder where NATO has the complete upper hand. Despite the "if you kill on you'll just anger more" bullshit the fighting overseas has actually worked and killed many of the enemies of civilization.

As long as you keep killing jihadis overseas and have moderate security checks you'll be reasonably safe (nothing is perfectly safe). There is no need to accept the humiliation of the TSA security theatre. It is not the TSA that has kept you safe, it is the killing of the violent extremists overseas that has - they are drawn like moths to a flame - this was a very smart move of the US to do this (even if most people don't grok it and the wars remain deeply unpopular due to superficial 'reasons'). The West is at war at the moment not against terror, but against the revival of a Caliphate that will not accept the progress of the Enlightenment. That is what is at stake (and has nothing to do with meekly accepting the fascism of the TSA).

Re:What is sad here (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#41775535)

Actually, despite the massively unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is because the US chose to fight jihadis on foreign soil.

Or it could be due to multiple factors. But even considering that, I'd have trouble believing some wouldn't slip by if they really wanted to. I think the secured cockpit doors and citizens who actually fight back are probably the biggest factors.

The wars are just a waste of money.

Re:What is sad here (5, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#41775621)

Who says they have to "slip by"?

This is the thing I really don't get. Who created the belief that terrorists have to get past airport security to do anything and why do people believe it?

If I was a terrorist leader I'd blow up a few bags of ball bearings in the lines of people waiting to nudie-scanned. The country would implode overnight...

The only reason this isn't happening is that there are no terrorists.

(nb. If they want to "slip by" they can just put the C4 up their asses or whatever... Drug smugglers do it all the time, why not terrorists?)

Re:What is sad here (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#41775669)

Who says they have to "slip by"?

I didn't mean slip by the TSA. I meant that I highly doubt that all of them would magically be trapped in the countries we have troops in.

Re:What is sad here (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#41775709)

OK... the point still stands though. The belief that they have to get past airport security is asinine.

Re:What is sad here (4, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#41775671)

Despite the "if you kill on you'll just anger more" bullshit the fighting overseas has actually worked and killed many of the enemies of civilization.

Years ago, they noticed the death toll of "terrorists" was above the sum of all "terrorists" on the planet. Either the war manufactured terrorists faster than we were killing them, or we were just killing innocent civilians and calling them terrorists to justify out mass murder. Either way, we are as bad as they say we are.

Re:What is sad here (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 2 years ago | (#41775757)

[quote]Years ago, they noticed the death toll of "terrorists" was above the sum of all "terrorists" on the planet.[/quote]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Or at least a basic citation.

Re:What is sad here (3, Informative)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#41775789)

we were just killing innocent civilians and calling them terrorists to justify out mass murder

Relevent to this: The US military defines "militant" as any male person in any country of the Middle East except Israel between the ages 13-50. Consider that the next time you hear a news report that says that "4 militants and 6 civilians" were killed: That could well be a random extended family meeting up for Eid, not a terrorist cell.

Re:What is sad here (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#41775727)

I would rather that they hand out loaded guns to everyone on the plane. Even though there is a larger chance of the plane ending up in space, if everyone on the plane is armed with a 45 cal pistol, no terrorist would even think of trying anything.

Require people to carry a pistol on flights is the answer.

Re:What is sad here (0)

Spectrumanalyzer (2733849) | about 2 years ago | (#41775759)

But how about we install surveillance cameras in everyone's homes? It's for your own safety and could stop a few crimes, so it's all worth it. Rights mean nothing at all.

Installing a security camera in your own home - your own paid for property - is an entirely different case than airport security where everyone has access, including would-be terrorists.

Im not a big fan of big-brother survellance either, but I kind of hoped that was implied, and people would focus on the discussion itself, rather than mix it with other areas that doesnt even relate.

Re:What is sad here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775761)

Hmm, "willingness of citizens to fight back".

I think you're on to something...

Re:What is sad here (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775391)

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams

(Captcha - unneeded)

Re:What is sad here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775411)

And how many hijacks have there been since they locked the cockpit door? this is just another BS excuse to treat people anyway they like... just like the Lie told to everyone about electronics and transmitting signals on air planes... that one is completely due to the airlines not wanting to spend the money to certify that individual planes are not bothered by the frequencies that consumers use...

I have seen the statistics... and other than 2 or 3 incidents... they have not caught anyone on any plane... and frankly they use the fear that everyone feels for the unknown to increase the spending on their jobs and this keep themselves employed.
 

Re:What is sad here (4, Insightful)

rioki (1328185) | about 2 years ago | (#41775431)

Except that there are two technologies that make pat down irrelevant. The first is the good old "metal wand" and the other is the newer "electronic nose". Two devices that can be implemented into hand held devices (probably even combined). I have not flown through Britain for a while but there there they never touch you. Metal detector went bleep, then they tell you to step over and wand you; oh it was the belt buckle. Have a nice flight Sir. As far as I remember they are also deploying back scatter and terraherz scanners, but I still doubt they pat you down if that fails / you refuse the scanner. Why is the US in the stone age when it comes to security?!

Re:What is sad here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775521)

"Why is the US in the stone age when it comes to security?!"
Because first you can make billions selling a crappy stone, more billions for a less crappy stone, additional billions for stone+, ...

Stone works -> Cool, buy stone 2.0, it's even better! -> $$$
Stone doesn't work -> Gee, that's a strange error, never seen it before, btw it's already fixed in stone 2.0! -> $$$

Re:What is sad here (1)

sociocapitalist (2471722) | about 2 years ago | (#41775533)

Except that there are two technologies that make pat down irrelevant. The first is the good old "metal wand" and the other is the newer "electronic nose". Two devices that can be implemented into hand held devices (probably even combined). I have not flown through Britain for a while but there there they never touch you. Metal detector went bleep, then they tell you to step over and wand you; oh it was the belt buckle. Have a nice flight Sir. As far as I remember they are also deploying back scatter and terraherz scanners, but I still doubt they pat you down if that fails / you refuse the scanner. Why is the US in the stone age when it comes to security?!

It's the only way they can recruit TSA agents?

Re:What is sad here (2)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#41775637)

Why is the US in the stone age when it comes to security?!

Hint: "Security" isn't the reason the TSA does what it does...

Re:What is sad here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775693)

The EU outlawed x-ray scanners due to health and privacy concerns. The ones in the UK are on trail and will be scrapped when the trail is over due to the EU ruling.

There are a few millimeter wave scanners in the UK for the select few who get singled out. Refuse and you have to leave the airport, there is no opt out.

Re:What is sad here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775731)

"I have not flown through Britain for a while but there there they never touch you."

Sorry mate, it's changed.

The walk-through metal detector issues a random alert on people that have been selected for a pat down. At Heathrow T5 there is one lane with a body scanner, and the rest have pat downs.

When I flew recently there was a massive backlog because the random alert was selecting 4 out of 5 men for a pat down, with only 1 in 5 for the women - though I may be biased in my reporting because I was *pissed* that the women weren't getting screened, and that the men had to wait for so long (one male attendant per checkpoint) and on top of all that, I had to endure the damn patdown myself.

It's absolutely fucked and I hate it...but why doesn't everyone else?

Re:What is sad here (1)

chrismcb (983081) | about 2 years ago | (#41775773)

Except that there are two technologies that make pat down irrelevant!

There is one that makes pat down irrelevant. It is called abstinence. As in abolish the TSA and get rid of the farce the security is.

Re:What is sad here (5, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 2 years ago | (#41775455)

I would personally prefer this "humiliation" to losing one of my family members because one woman would rather be free from the pat-downs/security scanning etc.

What about the kid who died in the wheel well of the jet airplane? If he could get in there then anyone could. Hell, just this week I saw a story about a guy who was stranded and hopped the fence into an airport, hoping to be confronted immediately by security (and thus saved). He walked around all the airplanes out on the tarmac, and right up to where the passenger terminals are. So, what good is getting groped or scanned other than to acclimate you to personal intrusions? None. It's the illusion of security. The scanners don't even work. Remember that story about the guy with a pocket on his sleeve? He put a metal cigarette pack in the pocket and since it was off his body, and appeared black as the background, they didn't see it at all on the scanner and he hopped on the plane with it.

Whatever happened to, "Give me Liberty or Give me Death?" Or that bit Ben Franklin said about trading your freedom for security and having neither? You've lost your way somewhere. You've become an irrational fear slut. You're thousands of times MORE likely to be killed in a car wreck and you don't run around spouting BS about how a TSA agent needs to ride with every car load to ensure safety. FUCK YOU. It's fools like you that are letting them turn the US into an oppressive regime, just like the ones we so hated in the 80's.

Re:What is sad here (1)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#41775499)

>Whatever happened to, "Give me Liberty or Give me Death?"

The same thing that happened to Thoreau's words on civil disobedience. Forgotten.

--
BMO

Re:What is sad here (3, Interesting)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about 2 years ago | (#41775763)

The jet-skier also showed the folly of the security theater at airports:

Jet Skier Breaches JFK Airport Perimeter, Wanders to Terminal 3 Undetected [nycaviation.com]

Questions now are raised as to why the Port Authority's $100 million Perimeter Intrusion Detection System (PIDS), loaded up with closed-circuit cameras and motion sensors, failed completely, and how a man can walk such a distance unnoticed. This is not JFK Airport's first perimeter breach, however. In early 2009, a trio of boaters ran ashore at the airport, wandered across a runway and showed up at the Port Authority Police rescue station themselves. They had become lost in their inflatable fishing raft during a storm.

Former NYPD veteran and former MTA deputy security director told ABC News âoeI think he should be given dinner and a bottle of champagne for showing us our faults,â but after a 3-mile swim, breaching an airport perimeter and a 2-mile walk in heavy, wet clothes, perhaps he should be given a trophy and a Navy SEAL Trident as well.

Re:What is sad here (-1, Troll)

Spectrumanalyzer (2733849) | about 2 years ago | (#41775777)

What about the kid who died in the wheel well of the jet airplane? If he could get in there then anyone could.

And what exactly has that got to do with the subject we're discussing?

To the moderators: It would be nice if you actually READ the threads you are moderating, rather than blindly press "interesting,troll,etc"...

Re:What is sad here (0)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#41775657)

>Obviously we who dont carry weapons or explosives around with us know that we are clean and free,

>free

You don't know the meaning of the word.

Make sure you make those boots shine with your tongue!

--
BMO

Re:What is sad here (4, Informative)

silentcoder (1241496) | about 2 years ago | (#41775733)

Bruce Schneier will point out that there have been several attempts since, all of them stopped effectively - and all stopped by security that was already there BEFORE 9/11.
In fact the TSA has made no difference to security and the attempts since then would not have been caught by them.

Only two changes since 9/11 has actually IMPACTED on security.
1) Passengers changed their mindset from "do as we're told" to "fight back" - because the terrorists were no longer going to let you live if you obeyed.
2) They reinforced the cockpit doors (one could argue THAT should have been done in the FIRST place).

Re:What is sad here (1)

rudolfel (700883) | about 2 years ago | (#41775737)

I fully agree. For some people the only way to make human contact with somebody else is to be fingered by TSA.

Re:What is sad here (1)

chrismcb (983081) | about 2 years ago | (#41775765)

is that the woman doesn't understand they're doing this for her and other peoples safety.

What is SAD is that YOU believe this is being done for your safety. Are you so afraid of the bogey man that you don't go to the mall, the movie theatre, to work, to school? Do you just stay locked up in your safe room in your house?
No, you don't. You go about your life on a regular basis. With no fear, and no sense of the bogey man. UNTIL you get to the airport. What is so special and different about the airport? What makes you so afraid? Was it the planes that were hijacked 10 years ago? Is that what is scaring you? Yet you go to the movie theatre, despite recent movie theatre shootings. You go to work, despite the chance that a plane can be flown into your work.
The TSA only exists to assuage your illogical fear. And yet they don't manage to stop guns, bombs, or other dangerous things onto the plane. But thats ok, despite the fact you are no more safe without the TSA. Its ok because you FEEL safe. Safety be damned, freedom and privacy be damned. As long as you FEEL safe.

Re:What is sad here (2)

dfm3 (830843) | about 2 years ago | (#41775791)

I would personally prefer this "humiliation" to losing one of my family members because one woman would rather be free from the pat-downs/security scanning etc.

Then the terrorists have won. This is exactly what they've set out to achieve.

(By the way, I nearly lost a family member on 9/11)

If billionaires were decent people... (4, Informative)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | about 2 years ago | (#41775339)

...one of them would jump right up to fund fighting her case all the way to the Supreme Court. What the hell, lunch money.

But they won't of course, because you can't be a decent person and be a billionaire.

Re:If billionaires were decent people... (5, Insightful)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 2 years ago | (#41775451)

If billionaires are needed to get justice in the US, the problem isn't with the billionaires, its with the justice system.

Re:If billionaires were decent people... (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 2 years ago | (#41775531)

You don't keep your billions by making fools of the government.

Re:If billionaires were decent people... (4, Informative)

sociocapitalist (2471722) | about 2 years ago | (#41775573)

...one of them would jump right up to fund fighting her case all the way to the Supreme Court. What the hell, lunch money.

But they won't of course, because you can't be a decent person and be a billionaire.

If you wait for the rich to step up and save you from the powerful, you're going to be waiting a long time.

There are other entities, though, that while ostracized for being 'Left', 'Socialist', etc. are actually willing to stand up for people's rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Human_rights_organizations_based_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]

Re:If billionaires were decent people... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775695)

The jury found her guilty. So there wasn't a single decent person in the jury. Think that, when selecting 12 people for jury duty you end up without one decent person. I'd say the billionaires can't be that much worse than the average...

Perhaps this is a step too far (1)

ozduo (2043408) | about 2 years ago | (#41775349)

I'm sure an enterprising sabateur would have other methods of getting contraband onto a plane other than by stashing it on his body. I'm in china on holidays at the moment and everywhere we go there are scanners and x-ray machines. Funnily enough they don't seem to pick up the bottle of booze I carry with me: if I was a betting man I'd say they were turned off most of the time and are just for show. Yesterday for instance we had to get off our tour bus and go through security screening before we visited the Three gorges dam. Then we got back onto the bus and continued our tour of the site. I could have had brought anything with me so long as I left it on the bus during the screening process. America there are other ways of protecting your borders rather than suffering your visitors to this intrusion.

Wait, there's video! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775373)

What I don't get is by what rationale or principle video evidence can be ignored by a jury.

You can only question TSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775383)

The rest of out out-of-control government is for your own good.

And don't you forget it.

Didn't RTFA (2)

Fuzzums (250400) | about 2 years ago | (#41775461)

But WTF : In the case against Abbott it was claimed that her behavior impeded the flow security-lines and lawful activity.
Is that a crime? Seriously?!

Re:Didn't RTFA (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#41775785)

Is that a crime? Seriously?!

I know the US has really gone downhill lately, but I don't think they've stooped (yet) to convicting people (rightly or wrongly) of things that aren't illegal (in some fashion or other, subject to interpretation by the courts).

Better security (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775475)

Let's step bavk and analyze what we're trying to achieve with these security measures by the TSA... We're truing to prevent the terrorists from killing more people, right?

Here's a simple idea for reaching that goal. Let's execute everyone. That way the terrorists won't have anyone to kill. Problem solved.

Re:Better security (2)

Dog-Cow (21281) | about 2 years ago | (#41775649)

TSA - Terror Supply Agency.

You never really thought that the TSA was about preventing terror, did you?

Good work (0)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#41775505)

How could they be sure that she was not a Muslim

Welcome into our times... (3, Insightful)

vikingpower (768921) | about 2 years ago | (#41775587)

...where absolute conformity and submission to the machinery of bureaucracy and state surveillance is a precondition for being able to function for any and every citizen. The police state is strengthening its grip upon us. Upon you. Upon me.

Fucking 14 years olds! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775635)

Fondling 14 years old, that'd kiddie porn right there.

Welcome, my son. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775729)

Welcome to the machine.

New meaning (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41775797)

TSA = Totally Stupid Agency

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>