Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Traveler Detained for Anti-TSA Message

samzenpus posted more than 7 years ago | from the don't-screw-around-at-the-airport dept.

1082

scifience writes "A traveler frustrated with recent changes to airport security procedures found himself detained in Milwaukee after writing a message critical of the TSA's leader on a plastic bag presented for screening. The message, which read "Kip Hawley is an Idiot," resulted in a confrontation with law enforcement, the traveler being told that his right to freedom of speech applied only "out there (pointing past the id checkers) not while in here [the checkpoint]." The story, which is detailed in a rapidly-growing thread on a discussion forum catering to frequent flyers, has attracted the interest of the ACLU, an AP reporter, and many others. The incident raises a number of interesting questions and concerns regarding just where our rights end."

cancel ×

1082 comments

Megaboss blackout yesterday in Amsterdam... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16226107)

Reply to this thread to tell how you spent that boring evening!

Re:Megaboss blackout yesterday in Amsterdam... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16226119)

Well, obvious: went to the bars. And yes, the crowd was indeed somewhat larger than usually on a Wednesday night.

Re:Megaboss blackout yesterday in Amsterdam... (-1, Offtopic)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226155)

Profitted from the occasion to get some work done...

It used to be your rights end where mine begin (5, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226111)

But increasingly, your rights end where dissent begins.

Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (3, Interesting)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226171)

this and other crazy incidents have caused me to avoid the US when travelling, even when
passing through to other countries.


Makes you wonder how many people have decided that and how many airlines will go bust as a
result.


Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (5, Interesting)

arivanov (12034) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226331)

Same here. I avoid to the extent possible any travel to the US.

I turned down two jobs for the sole reason that they advertised "frequent travel to US headquarters" as an advantage. No thanks, that is not an advantage. It is a first degree disadvantage.

Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16226189)

Seriously. I'm beginning to think we should really do the French thing and surrender. And by 'surrender' I mean stage fucking riots and take back our country. When the hell did we lose our collective spine to such an extent?

Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16226405)

Was that not the purpose of the 2nd Amendment to the US constitution? So as to enable the people to re-take control if the government got out of hand.

Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16226495)

When black americans became african-americans and handicapped people became challenged.
Not all muslims are terrorists but all terorrists as it concerns airports and the general laymen are muslim.

As now New York has set a precedence for banning a food [cnn.com] , it will never end. Peanut foods are next to go as they are highly offensive and life threatnieng to a subset of people [wikipedia.org] .

RTFA (Read The Fucking Amendment) (0, Troll)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226513)

RTFA (Read The Fucking Amendment)

" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Keyword: congress.

Capisci? Your freedom of speech, or press, or whatever, exist _only_ in your relation to congress. Noone else. Not an airline, not your neighbour, not Slashdot, not your employer, etc. If I want to chuck you out of my party because of something you've said, freedom of speech is fully non-applicable and can kiss my ass. Freedom of speech does _not_ give you a right to troll on someone else's property (a message board, an airline, etc), or whatever else you may have imagined.

Yes, the airline is perfectly right there: you may have your freedom of speech over there, not over here. The airline has _no_ obligation to give him any freedom of speech. It doesn't matter if it's dissent or not.

Frankly, it's getting tiresome by now. For a nation so fond of chest-thumping about their freedoms, you'd think people would at least bother learning what those are. But nosiree, bob. Ever since bulletin boards, newsgroups, FIDO, MUDs, etc, were invented, the utterly sad reality pops up again and again that the average people have no freakin' clue.

They imagine that it's some non-existent exact opposite: that they have some sacred right to troll on someone else's property, but it's OK to bend over to the Government. That it's some 1st Ammendment violation if their goatse post on some private board is deleted, but it's OK if the governemnt does it. (After all, duh, it's the government. It's their job to decide what's allowed and whatnot.;) Which is getting it completely wrong.

Learn thy actual rights, lemming. Not knowing them is the first step towards losing them.

Our rights (5, Insightful)

naich (781425) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226115)

"The incident raises a number of interesting questions and concerns regarding just where our rights end."

Don't you mean "... when our rights ended"?

Re:Our rights (1, Flamebait)

gilroy (155262) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226503)

Oh, that's easy. 2004 November 2.

The issue today is, was that a temporary lapse or a fundamental shift in the American polity? Considering that the House just legalized torture, I'm tending toward the latter.

Re:Our rights (1)

Magada (741361) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226517)

Approximately at the time when Reagan came to office.

Rights? (0, Flamebait)

Poromenos1 (830658) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226117)

What rights?

Re:Rights? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16226179)

What rights?
You know 'em http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights [wikipedia.org]
And possibly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights [wikipedia.org] but not necessarily http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights [wikipedia.org] and probably definitly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_rights [wikipedia.org]

Re:Rights? (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226217)

Why would animal rights be relevant?

And gay rights for that matter. Even if indeed the perp happened to be gay, this was immaterial to the issue at hand.

Re:Rights? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16226245)

Perhaps that's why parent poster wrote but not necessarily :)

Re:Rights? (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226263)

But he also wrote probably definitly

Or are you insinuating that the pax was aiming for a full-body check?

Re:Rights? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16226333)

Dude, you've been trolled. Get over it.
 

Re:Rights? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16226345)

As far as my understanding of animal rights goes, they do not directly apply to human beings, Human Rights cover that particulat species.

They end right there... (5, Insightful)

3.14159265 (644043) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226125)

"The incident raises a number of interesting questions and concerns regarding just where our rights end."

Well, they end right there at the point where people happily exchange freedom for that so called "security".

-------

Born stupid? Try again.

Re:They end right there... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16226223)

And gave security into the hands of underpayed security officers.

He just pissed one man off. That is all. I bet with the proper body language he would not have been detained at all.

Your rights ended when... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16226127)

Bush stole his first and second election...

Na, na, na, naa, naa, hey hey GOOD-BYE!!

Hello New World Order and the United Police States Of America!!

Seems like your rights end ... (1)

gutnor (872759) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226135)

with the war on terror that gave all those security authorities the power to make your life miserable and still keep public support.

Re:Seems like your rights end ... (2, Insightful)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226277)

"with the war on terror that gave all those security authorities the power to make your life miserable and still keep public support."

To be honest, the 'new' laws to support the war on terror are not really that new. The Government (Federal, State, and Local) have laws on the books that are so open to interpreration giving law enforcement extreamly (and scary) broad powers. The burden of proof has been on the accused for a very long time. It's just that the majority of the laws in place are not enforced. Most officers/Govt folks are normal people too.

The Right to Bear Arms (0)

RorschachUK (1006841) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226145)

Unbelievably, I hear the right to keep and bear arms on an airplane is under threat too.

Re:The Right to Bear Arms (4, Funny)

Skywings (943119) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226199)

Didn't know you could get bear arms. Thought bears were and endangered animal.

Re:The Right to Bear Arms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16226275)

That might pose a problem : I've got two of them, and they are not detachable from my body. :-)

Dont these peoople... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226147)

Have real jobs to do?

Re:Dont these peoople... (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226231)

Have real jobs to do?

Maybe a long wait for a connecting flight? I might also feel tempted to liven up my wait by scrawling nonsense on my plastic bags if I the alternative was 5 hours of boredom.

Of course, it's a dangerous game. What if you happen to be detained for much more than 25 minutes, and end up missing your flight. Boy, wouldn't that silly prank look foolish then!

Re:Dont these peoople... (1)

Wolfkin (17910) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226415)

I think he was talking about the TSA, as evidenced by "these people" and "jobs". :)

Who is Kip Hawley? (-1, Redundant)

viniosity (592905) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226157)

In case you didn't know, he is Director of TSA [dhs.gov] .

rights? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16226163)

With the current administration doing it's best to wipe out freedom, rights, and justice why should the airport be immune to the degeneration?

Constitution? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16226169)

Don't you yanks have a constitiution for this sort of thing?

Re:Constitution? (5, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226257)

Lots of Americans have the constitution of a beached whale.

Re:Constitution? (2, Interesting)

kalidasa (577403) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226283)

We did. In the 20th century, anyway.

Re:Constitution? (1)

Salgak1 (20136) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226379)

VOID WHERE PROHBITED BY LAW. I'm waiting for them to at least be honest, and stamp it on the document. . . I also expect to wait a LONG time. . . this is, after all, not just the Imperial Federal Government, but the TSA we're talking about....

Re:Constitution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16226451)

The Bush Administrataion uses it for toilet paper. From what I understand, the parchment that it is written on is much softer than Quilted Northern.

Hang on... (3, Funny)

randommemoryaccess (922901) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226177)

Don't our rights end where our lefts begin?

Re:Hang on... (5, Funny)

i_should_be_working (720372) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226367)

Makes sense. I left the states in '98 and my rights are still (mostly) intact.

where our rights end (5, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226183)

> regarding just where our rights end.

Your rights ended on the morning of September 11th 2001 - apparantly the morning of a successful coup of the US government by Al-Queda.

The passenger is screwed... (1)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226185)

pound to a penny his name is now on the no-fly list... and several other secret watch lists as well...

Liberalism (5, Insightful)

SlOrbA (957553) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226187)

In Civilization IV's Civilopedia there is a Benjamin Franklin quotation on article about Liberalism.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both"

In this context the society is not the State but the airport. Do people feel more secure on security control when a person before them is pointed out because of critisim about the system or are they going to be looking around for the lion in the bushes.

slashmotto (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16226305)

In Civilization IV's Civilopedia there is a Benjamin Franklin quotation on article about Liberalism.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both"
You must be new here.

Like, seriously new.

Re:Liberalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16226457)

In Civilization IV's Civilopedia there is a Benjamin Franklin quotation on article about Liberalism.
And that's the problem with liberals: They don't realize we are at WAR with Islamofascist who will stop at nothing in order to kill you and your family.
In times of war sacrifices have to be made. This isn't about "rights", this is about survival. We need to streamline our processes to react fast to threats, we may not have time to deal with technicalities like warrants if it means having a mushroom cloud over New York.

Re:Liberalism (5, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226491)

In times of war sacrifices have to be made. This isn't about "rights", this is about survival.
Yes!! We must destroy our society in order to save it! What's integrity when you can have piece of mind?!!

Re:Liberalism (1)

rammer (9221) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226485)

Whenever there is any "security" checkpoint anywhere I tend to feel uneasy, more afraid, intimidated, bullied.
I certainly don't feel more secure.

Any proactive security measures are ripe for exploitation.

I only hope US lives up to its own ideals. It is failing miserably right now.
EU on the other hand is a hopeless ideologically void pile of byrocracy that needs a thorough overhaul.
China has long since lost its ideals and needs a new revolution. One that is totally different from the last one.
Middle East is a mess.
Africa is a mess.
South America is mostly a mess.
Environment is a mess.

When will We, the world, stop manufacturing consent and start to fix the underlying problems instead of these quick fixes.
UN, in spite of its Many faults, has been able to work towards some of its goals.

Are Rights Cyclic? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16226191)

I wonder if there was a similar erosion of rights and freedoms during the second world war? And if so, was that erosion reversed during the period after WWII?

Re:Are Rights Cyclic? (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226321)

I don't know about a reversal, but they swirled round and round in a psychodelic rainbow for most of the 60's.

Re:Are Rights Cyclic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16226361)

I wonder if there was a similar erosion of rights and freedoms during the second world war? And if so, was that erosion reversed during the period after WWII?
I don't know what you were drinking before, but you might want to check if someone's spiked it with Kool-Aid there.

Better questions might be "I wonder if there was a similar erosion of rights and freedoms during the Vietnam war?" or "I wonder if there was a similar erosion of rights and freedoms during the War on Drugs?"

You wonder? (2, Informative)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226363)

Its been well documented that it took place.

And the reversal was only partial.

Re:Are Rights Cyclic? (3, Informative)

Bottlemaster (449635) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226385)

I wonder if there was a similar erosion of rights and freedoms during the second world war? And if so, was that erosion reversed during the period after WWII?
Off the top of my head, I can only think of what was done with Japanese-Americans during the war [wikipedia.org] . That's probably the most extreme case, but I'm sure the rest of the public gave up rights for "protection" from German spies and the like. Also read about the House Un-American Activities Committe [wikipedia.org] for some Cold War fun. I think it's safe to say we've put both behind us, or at least these days the laws have different names and target different demographics.

Re:Are Rights Cyclic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16226411)

I wonder if there was a similar erosion of rights and freedoms during the second world war? And if so, was that erosion reversed during the period after WWII?

Yes, there was. Some of this took years to reverse: for example, UK citizens had to carry produce-on-demand ID papers until 1952. That law was only reversed when challenged by a citizen who refused to produce his papers and was arrested. It's a hard battle to get your freedom back. It'll be even harder now: WW2 was a different sort of war to this "war on terror". There was a clear enemy - we knew exactly where he lived, and he could be defeated by force. It was a war that could be won, being a war against a group of people, rather than a war against dissent.

The quick way to get your rights back is a civil war or revolution that results in power being split between many different groups of people, each with different ideologies. In order to establish government, these people are then forced to agree. The only way they can all agree is to give freedom to each other: the result is a state like America after the War of Independence, or Britain after the Glorious Revolution. However, revolution is dangerous - if one group manages to seize power, you'd be even worse off.

WWII *had* an end (5, Insightful)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226417)

The problem with our current "war" is it has no defined condition for winning. We won WWII when Germany and Japan were defeated, but our current military escapades have no potential end in sight.

How will we know when the War On Terror is over? George W. Bush said, on 9/20/2001, that it "will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated". How the hell are we going to determine that? Who can possibly predict how long that'll take?

Similar problems present themselves in Iraq. "Major combat operations" officially ended over three years ago, when that banner was unfurled on the aircraft carrier. But we're still there. We've been hearing phrases like "as the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down" and "the next six months will be critical" for years now, with no end in sight.

We have no definition of victory. You can't compare this current erosion of rights, done in the name of perpetual war, with any erosion of rights that might've occurred during the well-defined WWII, because no one has any idea when we'll even know that it's time to expect our rights back.

Re:WWII *had* an end (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226481)

>no end in sight.
Don't say you weren't warned. Heck, even Bush snr said invading Iraq was a bad move.

Well, Duhh. (3, Insightful)

jthill (303417) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226193)

Kip Hawley and the entire TSA are rice-bowlers, collecting paychecks from a spectacularly moronic WPA that spends money as fast as the real WPA ever did but doesn't produce a damned thing.

This guy knows it, and said it in a particularly insulting way. To the people collecting those paychecks, who also know it in their hearts, and are ashamed.

So, yeah, they got angry. The twaddle about 1st Amendment rights applying ~out there, not in here~ was just angry-stupid horking, not worth getting in a flap about.

Re:Well, Duhh. (4, Insightful)

RegularFry (137639) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226247)

It's always worth getting in a flap about it. The more people get desensitised to that sort of behaviour, the less likely they are to react in the correct way when someone actually means it. Frogs boiling and all that.

Re:Well, Duhh. (1)

jthill (303417) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226475)

Frogs boiling is an urban myth. I disagree with the point, too: save the kerfluffle for when there's real danger. Crying wolf and all that.

Re:Well, Duhh. (1)

pookemon (909195) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226273)

Hmmm. I don't know what WPA is - but it looks pretty close to WGA so it must be bad.

Boooooo!

Re:Well, Duhh. (1)

Detritus (11846) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226441)

It was the Works Progress Administration [wikipedia.org] , a relief program for the unemployed, run by the USA's federal government during the Great Depression of the 1930s. It was a make-work program that put unemployed people to work and produced useful results.

Hmm (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16226197)

They clearly ought to have let him or her go through. There was no security risk, and being held up for 25 minutes can easily make you miss your flight. On the other hand, as abuses of authority go, this is fairly mild.

But what I'm wondering is why people think it's a good idea to go out of your way to be rude or insulting. If you shout "pig" at every cop you pass in the street, pretty soon you will find somone who takes it to heart and will give you a bad time. Maybe this is a violation of your freedom of speech. But why do it in the first place?

Re:Hmm (1)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226327)

But why do it in the first place?

Because you're meant to have the right to do so, if you want to say something in protest at sanctions which you see as stupid (and lets face it, banning liquids but not crystaline powers and still allowing laptops is the hight of idiocy) then you should be able to say so

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16226473)

Maybe this is a violation of your freedom of speech.

This is in no way a violation of freedom of speach. Clearly the intent was to insult Kip Hawley and could be considered http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation [wikipedia.org] The fact that security officer took it to heart in another thing altogether, becuase it was the director who got insulted and not the officer.

On the other hand attempt to put yourself in that officers position. Your boss is being insulted and you do nothing about it, what kind of concequences would follow if your boss finds out you did nothing about it?

What? (1, Insightful)

aiken_d (127097) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226201)

I thought our rights ended years ago. Is there some question about that?

T-shirts (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16226215)

I sense a business opportunity in a fashionable range of "Kip Hawley Is An Idiot" T-shirts...

Re:T-shirts (1)

Cyberllama (113628) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226229)

You read my mind. I wonder, though, if that would be considered slander.

Re:T-shirts (1)

pawzle (985995) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226265)

You can't slander a company, merely an individual.
Both slander and defamation do not apply to companies, only individuals personal reputations.
(IANAL)

Re:T-shirts (1)

aiken_d (127097) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226267)

It's only slander if it's not true. Do you really think that *anyone* would want to go to court and try to prove that they were not an idiot?

-b

Re:T-shirts (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226279)

It's not slander, because it is not a statement of fact ("Kip has an IQ of 30") but merely a statement of opinion.

But at some places you can be barred wearing T-Shirts with "offensive" slogans. Happened during the European software patent debate, when anti-patent protesters were barred from wearing their slogans on T-Shirts in the parliament. Interestingly enough, the pro-software patent activists were allowed to wear theirs.

Re:T-shirts (1)

ReallyNiceGuy (721792) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226357)

By the ethmological definition of the word, it means "person lacking professional skills" (wikipedia).
It seems that the frase is essencially correct.

Re:T-shirts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16226461)

How about one for women? "Kip Hawley is a boob, but that doesn't give you the right to fondle mine."

Re:T-shirts (5, Informative)

lixee (863589) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226523)

Remember the guy who was denied access to the plane until he removes his T-shirt bearing "We will not be silenced" in both Arabic and English?http://in.today.reuters.com/news/NewsArtic le.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-08-30T071006Z_ 01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-265380-1.xml [reuters.com]

Who are these people? (3, Insightful)

PinkyDead (862370) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226237)

I was thinking to myself while reading this travellers story - and I know from my own experience, these airport security people are much the same everywhere in the world - why do we tolerate security people like this.

It's like Doctors - they are expected to be arrogant, aloof and possessing of a certain air of infallibility. But they're not infalable, we know that and they know that.

Same thing with security people, customs, immigration etc etc. We expect them to be rude and aggressive - but in point of fact they have absolutely no right to be.

When planes blow up etc - the individual security people aren't berated for this. The system maybe - but not the individuals. Also, their lives are not a risk - it is we who travel on the planes that are at risk - and if we can be light-hearted about it, why can't these idiots be? (Gotta love the guy with cocaine).

I think it goes back to the same old thing - give a small man a little power and he will abuse it.

I would like to say that a number of these people are actually very nice and endowed with a decent sense of humour. And you know what - they get the job done just as well.

Re:Who are these people? (2, Insightful)

Ford Prefect (8777) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226399)

Same thing with security people, customs, immigration etc etc. We expect them to be rude and aggressive - but in point of fact they have absolutely no right to be.

Maybe it's just you. All those people are generally very polite and friendly to me - maybe because it's because I'm polite and friendly back?

Re:Who are these people? (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226427)

>It's like Doctors - they are expected to be arrogant, aloof
Dude, I think it's time you changed your doctor. I haven't met one like that in years - all the ones I use are all warm & welcoming these days.

Re:Who are these people? (2, Interesting)

myowntrueself (607117) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226453)

these airport security people are much the same everywhere in the world

They certainly are not.

For example, the airport security people in Singapore are totally different from their counterparts in the UK.

In Singapore, they exude an air of being happy in their jobs. They are friendly, courteous, efficient and well organised.

Those in the UK are the opposite in every way that matters.

Okay, so the TSA guys... (4, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226239)

Are not very bright, have an over important opinion of themselves and become hostile if contradicted.

Punishing those responsible isn't going to solve this problem in the general case.

Can anyone suggest a more proactive solution?

Re:Okay, so the TSA guys... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16226501)

the Solution: A drastic change in our Foreign Policy. Remove all the Zionist Greed and Warmongers from our infested Government and Businesses. Stop the Thievery of 6 Billion or more of our Social Security Money by the Terrorist State of Israel. 9/11 was not an attack on America per se,but an Act of Retaliation for the financial Support of the WTO, promoting Terrorrism against the Palestinian People,manipulating Elections,Assasinations etc. As you may have suspected for some time, our system of government can not survive without Trickery,Deceit,Murder,Assasinations,Vote Fraud and military Terrorism.

Re:Okay, so the TSA guys... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16226505)

I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Nothing new (2, Insightful)

ZoneGray (168419) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226243)

This is nothing new, and hardly a TSA phenomenon. Try insulting a cop's mother when he arrests you; you'll see how far your free speech rights extend.

The TSA is basically a hall monitor in the heirarchy of law enforcement. So they're even more sensitive to taunts, and more likely to elevate an insult to the level of national emergency.

Re:Nothing new (3, Insightful)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226353)

Try insulting a cop's mother...

This was hardly that personal. Hawley is the director of the TSA, and these were grunts at an airport. This was akin to telling the average private in Iraq that "Donald Rumsfeld is an idiot".

Re:Nothing new (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226515)

This was akin to telling the average private in Iraq that "Donald Rumsfeld is an idiot".

You know what I'd expect? I would expect he'd agree with you, and still punch you in the face.

That's the way we are.

Don't forget your international readers (1, Offtopic)

NorthernLite (1006849) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226249)

I live in the UK.... TSA? Am I supposed to know what that is? There is life outside the USA, cover up your t-shirt and come visit!

Re:Don't forget your international readers (1)

doobie22 (970556) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226409)

Why is this modded off-topic but someone posting that Kip Howley was director of the TSA which is gatherable from the article by any idiot considered informative?

Re:Don't forget your international readers (1, Redundant)

nacturation (646836) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226443)

I live in the UK.... TSA? Am I supposed to know what that is?

I don't live in the UK, but I found this useful:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=TSA [google.co.uk]
 

Re:Don't forget your international readers (1)

lahi (316099) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226483)

Oh, haven't you heard yet? Soon, when all the speakers have been installed in the surveillance cameras you have, BB will announce that the place you live was never called the UK. It's Oceania, I'm afraid. And remember, Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

-Lasse

TSA as Terrorist Scare Agency? (1)

necromcr (836137) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226295)

Blah, blah. TSA is doing a real job at scaring passangers like that's gonna keep terrorist attacks down.

The terorists will just start behaving nicely.

Rights and wrongs (2, Insightful)

djupedal (584558) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226297)

Reminds me of being 'detained' as a teenager, back in the '60s, because the car we were in had a small American flag on the antenna that was upside down...

That was regular cops and they seem to have come around since then. These TSA wonks are more like renta-cops - got shot at by one of them, back then as well, and the regular cops that came out said they would have been 'ok' with me shooting back.

Amazing what a little taste of authority will do for an otherwise flimsy backbone.

where our rights end? (3, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226303)

I think you meant "when did our rights end".

Here in the usa, what rights we had left pretty much ended on 9.11.01, when the government seized the opportunity to grab the rest of them after a tragic event.

TSA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16226309)

Lots of reference to TSA, but nowhere does the article or any comment actually say what this TSA thingy is.

Gee, thanks, Slashdot (1)

grouse (89280) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226323)

I was wondering what had happened to FlyerTalk, one of my favorite web sites. Why it was being sluggish and actually just stopped working. Now I know, thanks to Slashdot!

Although having a database error page that says "Please try again by pressing the refresh button in your browser" probably doesn't help with the load.

YRO? (1)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226377)

So... this happened online apparently?

Ohh, on the line at the airport. Not online, as in on the Internet.

This reminds me of an old saying (5, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226389)

If you don't think too clearly, then it's best you don't think to much.

Evidently philosophical acumen apprently isn't high on the list of qualifications for being a TSA screener.

That said, I fly a great deal, and TSA personnel seem to be fairly representative of the rest of the human race; some are automatically grouchy and unpleasant, some are tempermentally helpful and friendly, and the majority are like most people, they give you back what you bring them. When you're snide or difficult, the grouchy ones return with interest; when you are pleasant and courteous, the friendly ones return that with interest.

Speaking of philosophy, in Plato's ideal state there were three classes of people, rulers, who required the virtue of wisdom (sophia); soldiers, who required the virtue of courage (andreia); and the rest of the people who required the virtue of sophrosune, which is translated often as moderation, but is perhaps better thought of as temperance. The Greeks thought of this as a kind of self-control over pleasure seaking, but it applies to the negative emotions like anger and suspicion as well. In a modern democratic republic, people (even soliders -- possibly especially them) are called on to excerise the virtues of all three Platonic classes of people, although in different measure.

TSA is above all a civilian agency, although security is its function. And the civilian virtue of temperance is critical to the efficient execution of its duties. Consider the grouchy, aggressive and irritable inspector, on one hand, and the overly friendly one on the other. These are both bad, not because the travelling population is comprised mostly of decent people (it is) on one hand, nor because the travelling population contains dangerous bad people (it does). The reason these characteristics are bad in a screener is that they are both forms of distraction from the actual job.

TSA was cobbled together pretty much overnight, so its a mixed bag. But consider the benefits of moderation. If you're too suspicious, you jump to conclusions and you dwell on irrelevant details. If I were a terrorist, I'd want to be a couple of people behind the guy with the Kip Hawley bag, so I could pass through while everyone was dealing with the First Amendment brouhahah. Likewise, you want the inspectors to be pleasant, but not too friendly. Pleasant behavior is a social lubricant; it makes things run faster. That means more people inspected in a given number of time, or the same number scrutinized in more detail. But you don't want pleasantness to rise to outright friendliness. Chatting and making small talk would get in the way of business.

Of course, you need a wide selection of people if you want to consistently pick the ones from the middle of the deck. For better or worse, security is just one of those things we think anybody is able to do; we don't see it as a job with high professional or personal qualifications. By paying accordingly, we don't a work force which is consistently fitted to do the job with excellence. We end up with a workforce that is representative of the population, and have to accept the natural variations in performance that involves. Perhaps that's good enough. Freedom isn't going to fall apart because of some hot-headed TSA employee taking it upon himself to impose loyalty on the citizenry. Society isn't going to unravel if the occasional airplane is hijacked. We don't like to think of it this way, but we really treat these things as part of the cost of doing the business of society. If we didn't, we'd do what was necessary to have a more consistenly professional TSA.

Serves him right (1)

MullerMn (526350) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226429)

That'll teach him to strand the Enterprise in the middle of nowhere.

My own favorite quote... (1)

dyfet (154716) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226469)

"They hate us for our freedoms; so we will get rid of them!" - ?Bush? :)

TSA are a law unto themselves (1)

Archon-X (264195) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226471)

If you fly through frequently outside of the US, or are not natively from the US, you've probably notice how many rights you don't have when flying into (or through) the USA.

From compulsory finger-printing, mugshots etc - to being refused entry even for those with a no-record criminal record, it seems a little strange.

That said, the TSA appear to be a law unto themselves - the debacle over bag locks is a prime example.
We are told (Australians in particular after the Corby case) to secure bags as much as you can.
That said - if you lock a bag, the TSA unlock it forceably - or in the case of myself, remove both zips and leave the suitcase open. You can purchase a TSA approved lock, that lets in anyone w/ a master key (hah).
If you're lucky, you'll receive a 'We went through your shit. If we broke something, sorry, but we're not responsible.' message.

Totally unacceptable.

To the point: I've had bags broken and broken into. I've locked them w/ zip ties, and provided spares with notes asking for them to kindly reseal the bag - and got a broken bag back w/ zipties removed.

It's a total joke.

rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16226511)

Who will be the next Rosa Parks?

The harrass pilots as well (5, Interesting)

NiceBacon (202600) | more than 7 years ago | (#16226521)

A lot of the members in my gliding club are airline pilots and i hear a lot of stories from them.

The pilots have to pass through security just like the rest of us, and from what I hear they are getting increasingly fed up with the security screening staff. The general opinion is, that these are the same personality types that under different circumstances would become executioners.

Some of the pilots fought back though. One guy I heard of, attempted to pass through the detector gate, carefully making sure to step over an imaginary 1 foot high obstruction.
The screening crew apparently didn't have a sense of humor and made the pilot walk through the gate again, warning him to do it "normal" this time around.
At first the pilot prcoeeded normally through the gate, but stopped in the middle of the gate, spinning around in a Michael Jackson-esqe manouvre and exited the gate walking backwards. The screening crew went ballistic and forced him through a third time before he was let through.

Another pilot presented his ID card to the security screening crew, was let through and pocketed his card again, hurrying towards his assigned aircraft. He was running late.
Airpot security guidelines clearly states that ID cards should be carried visible at all times and a female security offcial noticed that the pilot did not carry a visible ID-card, took offence and ran after him. The pilot made it all the way to the cockpit and was sitting down and preparing for the flight, when the security offical came bursting into the cockpit, throwing a hissy fit and telling the pilot off for not wearing the ID card visible. The pilots in the cockpit were running late and were getting increasingly annoyed by the security official, when they noticed that the official was not carrying an ID card herself.
"So who are you?", they asked her, demanding to see her ID card. Fumbling around her pockets, she realised that she had left her own ID card behind, when running after the pilot.
The pilots resolutely locked the cockpit security doors and radioed the airport advising them that an unknown person that could not identify herself was locked in the cockpit with them.
The security official was then escorted off the plane by two armed police officers.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...