For the First Time, the TSA Meets Resistance(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
For the First Time, the TSA Meets Resistance
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-first-time-the-tsa-meets-resistance/65390/
40 comments
I feel like we need a script to recite when demanding a patdown that explains to all the people around us why the porno machines and the whole process is so objectionable. And request to have the patdown out in the open so people can see what you're willing to put up with to avoid going through the scanner.
"I'd prefer the pat-down to the strip search, please."
If challenged on the term strip search, as seems semi-likely:
"It records a picture of my naked body, and sends it to a screen for someone to look at, right?"
Then, regardless whether the responds is "yes", "no", "yes, but...", silence, whatever, follow up with just:
"Pat-down, please."
If challenged on the term strip search, as seems semi-likely:
"It records a picture of my naked body, and sends it to a screen for someone to look at, right?"
Then, regardless whether the responds is "yes", "no", "yes, but...", silence, whatever, follow up with just:
"Pat-down, please."
The problem with this is that you're asking for the pat-down. If that's required to fly if I opt-out of the strip search, let them say so.
"I opt out of the electronic strip search {.|because} {I believe in human dignity|it's silly|I am worried about potential health risks|of Rolando Negrin|...}"
"I opt out of the electronic strip search {.|because} {I believe in human dignity|it's silly|I am worried about potential health risks|of Rolando Negrin|...}"
most frequent flyers (on flyertalk) have been calling it the nude-o-scope
nude-o-scope just sounds too benign. We refer to the artistic, tasteful depictions of unclothed people in fine art as "nudes". The images captured by back-scatter x-ray bear no resemblance to the tasteful renderings of Titian, Michelangelo, Gaugin, etc. An appropriate nickname for the machine should be derogatory and characterize both the tasteless nature of the images produced and the abusive, exploitative process by which they are acquired. Personally, I think it should be referred to as the Porn-o-Tron machine.
People at my office seem to have standardized on "the naked machine," which I think sounds appropriately menacing, yet pleasantly colloquial. It's just diplomatically neutral enough that I think I may use it in line next time I opt out of one.
Maybe we should call it the Digital Rape Machine so that anti-Digital-Restrictions-Management stickers can advocate two causes at once.
Why not just call it what it is? It's a strip search.
>Why not just call it what it is? It's a strip search.
Personally if they really want to see me naked they can. It's just a hunk of meat. But you're lying, it's not a strip search unless you take off your clothes, ie "strip".
It's a scan of your body. You're perfectly right to object if you don't like it but it's silly to lie about it IMO.
Personally if they really want to see me naked they can. It's just a hunk of meat. But you're lying, it's not a strip search unless you take off your clothes, ie "strip".
It's a scan of your body. You're perfectly right to object if you don't like it but it's silly to lie about it IMO.
With a digital camera. In 3D!
I thank that would be a good idea. But it needs to be catchy. At least where I am the "naked body scanner" phrase seems to have caught on (or at least be understood).
This is a great idea -- I'll send it to some privacy organizations and see what they think ...
9/11: when the terrorists won and we lost our freedoms.
Operation Iraqi Freedom
Don't you mean Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL)? That is what our corporate war pigs named their little genocide... all while laughing directly in our faces.
What more proof do people need that the war on terror is a complete fabrication? Once again we have thwarted "terrorist" attacks right before a midterm election. The CIA/Mossad boys are up to their old tricks again.
We are sheep being led into the slaughter. Will you do anything to stop it or will you sit back and allow your children to be sold into servitude?
What more proof do people need that the war on terror is a complete fabrication? Once again we have thwarted "terrorist" attacks right before a midterm election. The CIA/Mossad boys are up to their old tricks again.
We are sheep being led into the slaughter. Will you do anything to stop it or will you sit back and allow your children to be sold into servitude?
Why is this blatantly abrasive propaganda being up-voted?
I might have to stop coming here if Neocons like Goldberg get respect from the locals.
If I were to fly for some reason, I think what I would seriously consider doing is taking the machine, but as I got to it announcing, "fine, you want to see me naked?" and just taking off all my clothes, and then stepping into the scanner.
That's catchy, but kind of a non-starter for people who area actually worried about their privacy.....
It would be like PETA protesting by eating live animals or something.
It would be like PETA protesting by eating live animals or something.
I might choose the backscatter machine with "F the TSA" written in aluminum foil under my shirt.
Just make sure you actually spell it out.
> I plan on filing a complaint at the first hint of an off-color comment about what they're doing. "Better get new gloves, Fred!" --- "I'd like your name and your supervisor's name, now."
This sounds like a good idea. Maybe I'll do this, too. I don't fly often, but this stuff really, really bothers me.
This sounds like a good idea. Maybe I'll do this, too. I don't fly often, but this stuff really, really bothers me.
I'd rather not have my privacy invaded, but you make a fair point.
This is one of the few reasons I'm currently (actively) trying to stay away from the US. As far as it's in my power, I refuse to be presumed guilty, and go through such an offensive and ridiculous process.
This is one of the few reasons I'm currently (actively) trying to stay away from the US. As far as it's in my power, I refuse to be presumed guilty, and go through such an offensive and ridiculous process.
Interesting. And you're right. If the inconvenience that authority imposes is less than filing complaints (in the long run), then I'm not going to bother. Inconvenience does not equal injustice, however, and I do not personally find pat downs unjust. My doctor checks for testicular cancer, so a professional (professional in the sense that the person is doing what s/he is doing for a living) who give my dick a pat to make sure it's not as hard as a gun does not faze me.
I think one should take a few minutes and write an email and/or call:
DHS, TSA, all the major U.S. airlines, along with their state and federal Reps and let them know what we thinks of this.
If we all do this...perhaps our voices will help turn the tide of this stupidity.
DHS, TSA, all the major U.S. airlines, along with their state and federal Reps and let them know what we thinks of this.
If we all do this...perhaps our voices will help turn the tide of this stupidity.
So I'm just wondering, what if you're a parent flying with children? I don't have kids, so I don't know what the rules are for TSA screening of them.
To me, it sounds like as a parent you either have the choice of letting some anonymous person in another room take naked pictures of your kids, or you have to let some strange man/woman touch and grope your children until they meet 'resistance'.
In the meantime, metal detectors are in place but it seems like there's some move to phase these out. And when I have kids, if some government minimum wage flunky thinks they're going to grope my daughter or son, my wife will be posting bail for me soon thereafter.
To me, it sounds like as a parent you either have the choice of letting some anonymous person in another room take naked pictures of your kids, or you have to let some strange man/woman touch and grope your children until they meet 'resistance'.
In the meantime, metal detectors are in place but it seems like there's some move to phase these out. And when I have kids, if some government minimum wage flunky thinks they're going to grope my daughter or son, my wife will be posting bail for me soon thereafter.
I'm flying with my kids in a few months; my plan is to simply record the whole thing with my iPhone (you may see me in the news shortly thereafter).
If my son gets upset, I plan to tell him "this is why you're going to take trig seriously; do bad in school and you might end up with this crappy job".
The pat-down is better than the machine. Even for kids. Maybe especially for kids. If you're going to violate my kids privacy, you'd better believe I'm going to want to be in the actual room.
If my son gets upset, I plan to tell him "this is why you're going to take trig seriously; do bad in school and you might end up with this crappy job".
The pat-down is better than the machine. Even for kids. Maybe especially for kids. If you're going to violate my kids privacy, you'd better believe I'm going to want to be in the actual room.
I don't know about the United States, but pretty much everywhere taking videos of airport security check is prohibited.
You can in the US.
We don’t prohibit public, passengers or press from photographing, videotaping, or filming at screening locations. You can take pictures at our checkpoints as long as you’re not interfering with the screening process or slowing things down. We also ask that you do not film or take pictures of our monitors.
We don’t prohibit public, passengers or press from photographing, videotaping, or filming at screening locations. You can take pictures at our checkpoints as long as you’re not interfering with the screening process or slowing things down. We also ask that you do not film or take pictures of our monitors.
I was videoing a checkpoint during a lock-down and was told by the port authority/airport police that I wasn't allowed to point my camera at the 'secured area.' This was at Newark just this last January (when they locked it down because someone ran through the 'secured area' exit).
Missing context:
However… while the TSA does not prohibit photographs at screening locations, local laws, state statutes, or local ordinances might. Your best bet is to call ahead and see what that specific airport’s policy is.
Missing context:
However… while the TSA does not prohibit photographs at screening locations, local laws, state statutes, or local ordinances might. Your best bet is to call ahead and see what that specific airport’s policy is.
hmm... There were signs at JFK and also at SFO that prohibited cameras last time I traveled internationally (about a year ago). Where is this quote from?
I saw that quote at New Wark and Cincinnati.
[deleted]
I wish I could upvote the idea about videotaping the proces and downvote you belittling those less fortunate than yourself.
A job is a job is a job.
Many TSA workers are on a power trip. Get off your high horse.
Maybe it's a coping mechanism. I mean how else could you do that job? If you and 50 people you work with are assigned to pat down strangers in an airport terminal, would you say no? Or would you find a way to deal, and just do it?
Don't they usually want your phone on the conveyor belt going through the X-ray machine? How do you videotape the circus at that point?
> If my son gets upset, I plan to tell him "this is why you're going to take trig seriously; do bad in school and you might end up with this crappy job".
That is a horribly disrespectful thing to say in front of someone who is doing their job. Would you say something like that to a proctologist as they stuck a finger up your butt? I doubt the TSA people like this either, perhaps some will even resign over it. But that person has a job and they are doing it as they are instructed to do. That is the job they use to pay their rent and bills, so that they won't need to go on the dole and have their bills paid by your trig-savvy son.
Bitch about the policy all you want, and do what you think needs to be done to change it. But don't belittle the TSA worker, they can't change anything.
That is a horribly disrespectful thing to say in front of someone who is doing their job. Would you say something like that to a proctologist as they stuck a finger up your butt? I doubt the TSA people like this either, perhaps some will even resign over it. But that person has a job and they are doing it as they are instructed to do. That is the job they use to pay their rent and bills, so that they won't need to go on the dole and have their bills paid by your trig-savvy son.
Bitch about the policy all you want, and do what you think needs to be done to change it. But don't belittle the TSA worker, they can't change anything.
If you have the job that forces you to feel up the crotches of children in order to encourage their parents to send them through a machine that takes naked pictures of them without probable cause of having committed any crime, then I suggest you quit that job.
Are plenty of hardworking people going to have their feelings and self esteem hurt by this process? Good. Systemetized violations of our most private areas should cause all sorts of pain.
I might feel differently if these were sworn law enforcement officers we're talking about, for a number of reasons. I'm generally very respectful of law enforcement. Fortunately (or not), I'm not forced to confront that conundrum, since these aren't police officers, but low-skilled "security" contractors whose sole purpose is to harass citizens in order to create the illusion of control.
By the way, in the history of all-time worst rationalizations for behavior, do we even need to talk about "that person has a job and they are doing it as they are instructed to do"?
Are plenty of hardworking people going to have their feelings and self esteem hurt by this process? Good. Systemetized violations of our most private areas should cause all sorts of pain.
I might feel differently if these were sworn law enforcement officers we're talking about, for a number of reasons. I'm generally very respectful of law enforcement. Fortunately (or not), I'm not forced to confront that conundrum, since these aren't police officers, but low-skilled "security" contractors whose sole purpose is to harass citizens in order to create the illusion of control.
By the way, in the history of all-time worst rationalizations for behavior, do we even need to talk about "that person has a job and they are doing it as they are instructed to do"?
>If you have the job that forces you to feel up the crotches of children in order to encourage their parents to send them through a machine that takes naked pictures of them without probable cause of having committed any crime, then I suggest you quit that job.
Thank you for making my day. That is all.
Thank you for making my day. That is all.
>If you have the job [...] then I suggest you quit that job.
Very easy to say.
I also like how you attacked with full prejudice anyone who might attempt to contradict you.
You're attacking the wrong people. Did these TSA people in the terminal get up one day and decide that they wanted to do pat-downs on everyone? I'm pretty sure it's been very hard for some of them to stay in their post with the new conditions but they're there because they do have families to feed and rent to pay, etc.. They're people too.
So, yes we do have to talk about the reason that you think you can dismiss people for not simply quitting their jobs because of enforced change that is not their fault and not their choice. We do have to talk about why you feel they should be potentially impoverished.
Why don't you leave your job in protest? That would be as effective as a TSA officer leaving theirs I'm sure.
Yes if all people in your country refused to do security pat-downs then this wouldn't happen. Also no flights would leave the ground (for at least a time).
IMO if you feel so strongly that you're demanding other people leave their jobs then you need to be doing 2 things. You need to be directly supporting those people leaving their jobs financially, and you need to be lobbying hard for a change in the rules/law.
If you're doing both those things then more power to you, TSA people will be happy you're paying their wages whilst they find work.
So, there you have it, in your opinion the "[worst] in the history of all-time worst rationalizations for behavior".
Very easy to say.
I also like how you attacked with full prejudice anyone who might attempt to contradict you.
You're attacking the wrong people. Did these TSA people in the terminal get up one day and decide that they wanted to do pat-downs on everyone? I'm pretty sure it's been very hard for some of them to stay in their post with the new conditions but they're there because they do have families to feed and rent to pay, etc.. They're people too.
So, yes we do have to talk about the reason that you think you can dismiss people for not simply quitting their jobs because of enforced change that is not their fault and not their choice. We do have to talk about why you feel they should be potentially impoverished.
Why don't you leave your job in protest? That would be as effective as a TSA officer leaving theirs I'm sure.
Yes if all people in your country refused to do security pat-downs then this wouldn't happen. Also no flights would leave the ground (for at least a time).
IMO if you feel so strongly that you're demanding other people leave their jobs then you need to be doing 2 things. You need to be directly supporting those people leaving their jobs financially, and you need to be lobbying hard for a change in the rules/law.
If you're doing both those things then more power to you, TSA people will be happy you're paying their wages whilst they find work.
So, there you have it, in your opinion the "[worst] in the history of all-time worst rationalizations for behavior".
I wish I had the ability to up-vote more than once. This deserves to be printed and framed.
I'd just like to point out the difference between this and some comments below that basically say "LOL NAZIS JUST DID THEIR JOB" -- 134 points and counting vs. -4 and probably even lower in fact.
This is how you make this sort of argument. And I'm not just saying that because I agree with it. (That's what my upvote was for.)
This is how you make this sort of argument. And I'm not just saying that because I agree with it. (That's what my upvote was for.)
Awesome.
Well, presumably proctologists are making a decent living, right? Certainly more than TSA reps, or am I mistaken?
Yeah the same goes for those poor sap guards at Auschwitz.
I mean, really, they we're just doing their jobs to pay their bills, etc. etc.
TSA is not a far step from that, btw.
I mean, really, they we're just doing their jobs to pay their bills, etc. etc.
TSA is not a far step from that, btw.
I accidentally upvoted you. TSA is quite a far step from that. Don't suck all the oxygen out of the conversation.
In quantity only, not quality. If someone orders you to do something you consider immoral and you still do it, you're just as much to blame.
See the Milgram experiment and the Nuremberg trials. The "just doing their job" excuse isn't good enough for passengers or for employees, they should do the right thing and quit/disobey.
See the Milgram experiment and the Nuremberg trials. The "just doing their job" excuse isn't good enough for passengers or for employees, they should do the right thing and quit/disobey.
You sure about that? I always got the impression the real problem in the camps, besides the fact they existed etc, was guards enjoying their immoral job and taking liberties. And that is indeed a whole step above.
There's no simple reason. Who's to say that the enjoyment wasn't a coping mechanism? Who's to say they didn't think it was necessary to protect their country? I don't think they woke up one day and thought "today I'm going to torture and murder me some Jews", there was a very gradual manipulation process that led them there.
Have you seen the video of US marines airbombing journalists (or civilians? I don't remember). They seem to enjoy it a whole lot... We, of course, know this is nothing like that, but are we sure? In both cases people were doing what they thought was necessary for the good of their country (of course, it's much easier to see how killing people is justified when you think they're about to shoot anti-aircraft missiles at you). It's very easy to demonise people in retrospect, and say "we would never do these things today", but the guards in concentration camps probably said the same thing for other atrocities of the past, while actually doing the same thing themselves.
This is just a lot of speculation on my part, but I find it hard to believe that an entire country just happened to consist of monsters who would enjoy killing people or endorsing that genocide. I'm just saying that these are probably the same principles at play, but we have the benefit of hindsight and should take steps to nip this erosion in the bud.
Of course, that's very hard to do, so we'll probably just shut up and take this too.
Have you seen the video of US marines airbombing journalists (or civilians? I don't remember). They seem to enjoy it a whole lot... We, of course, know this is nothing like that, but are we sure? In both cases people were doing what they thought was necessary for the good of their country (of course, it's much easier to see how killing people is justified when you think they're about to shoot anti-aircraft missiles at you). It's very easy to demonise people in retrospect, and say "we would never do these things today", but the guards in concentration camps probably said the same thing for other atrocities of the past, while actually doing the same thing themselves.
This is just a lot of speculation on my part, but I find it hard to believe that an entire country just happened to consist of monsters who would enjoy killing people or endorsing that genocide. I'm just saying that these are probably the same principles at play, but we have the benefit of hindsight and should take steps to nip this erosion in the bud.
Of course, that's very hard to do, so we'll probably just shut up and take this too.
> I find it hard to believe that an entire country just happened to
> consist of monsters who would enjoy killing people or endorsing
> that genocide.
1. The guards at the concentration camps were not 100% of population of Germany.
2. Did the general populus of Germany really know everything that was happening at the concentration camps? Did they know that Jews were being killed at stuck in mass graves or were they (the public) just told that they (the Jews) were being 'sent to camps' to 'keep them separated from the general population?'
Well, by that logic, TSA employees are not 100% of the population of the US either. I can't say how much they knew, but that makes it even worse, because the citizens of Germany were unwitting accomplices, whereas everyone knows what's going on in airports and still consents to it.*
* I'm not equating pat-downs to genocide.
* I'm not equating pat-downs to genocide.
People who win the lottery are generally not any happier six months later. Individuals seem to have a kind of equilibrium of happiness. I think it's reasonable that the guards would acclimate to a really crappy situation as well.
[deleted]
Yeah but it's true
That is a horribly disrespectful thing to say in front of someone who is doing their job.
Good, maybe if we are lucky he will kill himself over it.
If that happens I will urge everybody to go piss on his grave, because he is not a human, but a criminal mindless drone.
JUST DOING YOUR JOB WAS WHAT THE NAZIS WHERE HUNG FOR - IT IS NO EXCUSE.
Good, maybe if we are lucky he will kill himself over it.
If that happens I will urge everybody to go piss on his grave, because he is not a human, but a criminal mindless drone.
JUST DOING YOUR JOB WAS WHAT THE NAZIS WHERE HUNG FOR - IT IS NO EXCUSE.
Oh, God. There's a brilliant plan somewhere in here; the trick is to make the pedophilia witch hunt and the terrorist witch hunt collide.
How long before child molesters realize what a "great gig" it is?
Once some of the stored files leaks onto the internet... Then this whole thing would just be over.
It's 'funnier' in the UK - they ruled the scanners aren't a problem for kids, scanning them isn't obscene.
But images taken by the machines may be obscene - so possession of the pictures gets you prison + lifetime on the sex-offenders register.
This came up after they were going to use them in schools.
But images taken by the machines may be obscene - so possession of the pictures gets you prison + lifetime on the sex-offenders register.
This came up after they were going to use them in schools.
I think the whole paedophilia thing is a weak argument against the virtual strip search machines. While I totally agree that subjecting children to that kind of abuse is completely inappropriate, I don't see how it somehow becomes any less completely inappropriate if you abuse someone the same way just because they have passed their 18th birthday.
As far as I'm concerned, everyone responsible for setting the policy to use these machines or actually using them should be one trial away from the sex offender's register, just like anyone else who takes "naughty photos" of someone without their consent. They can have their hearing right after we're done with the agents described in the article who take such apparent delight in groping people inappropriately.
As far as I'm concerned, everyone responsible for setting the policy to use these machines or actually using them should be one trial away from the sex offender's register, just like anyone else who takes "naughty photos" of someone without their consent. They can have their hearing right after we're done with the agents described in the article who take such apparent delight in groping people inappropriately.
The situation with TSA is becoming more farcical by the week.
I keep waiting for some grownup to stand up and put some limits on what's acceptable for them to do, but then I realize that there basically is no limit. Nobody wants to be the person that stops this runaway train.
It's enough to make me seriously consider whether I want to use commercial air travel again.
I keep waiting for some grownup to stand up and put some limits on what's acceptable for them to do, but then I realize that there basically is no limit. Nobody wants to be the person that stops this runaway train.
It's enough to make me seriously consider whether I want to use commercial air travel again.
I would love to make an informed decision at the ballot box next Tuesday based on candidates' positions on this issue, but alas it seems they've been a bit too busy talking about each others' sex lives to get to it.
British Airways chief exec Martin Broughton seems to qualify: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5j8a4C...
The guys at BA have been kicking ass recently. Remember that ash cloud that grounded every plane in Europe? Willie Walsh personally went up in a 747 to prove it was actually safe to fly in. That's like the CEO of BP pulling on his gloves and sorting the leaky rig out personally.
I would love to stand up to it, but I'd really just rather get to my vacation place. If it didn't cost several hundred dollars for a plane ticket to get to that point, I would just drive down to the airport and do it. I guess we could all print fake boarding passes, though.
They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Martin Niemöller
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Martin Niemöller
That's a quote about discrimination. I don't see how it applies; we are all being discriminated against equally in this case.
It's a quote about standing up to tyranny, and the fact that if you don't speak up when someone else is discriminated against you may be next in line.
I think it applies very well in this case.
I think it applies very well in this case.
It's a quote about slippery slopes that uses discrimination as an example. As is popular with that quote, we could adapt it into something a bit more applicable:
They first made us run our shoes through the X-Ray machine, and I complied because it wasn't that big a deal.
Then, they installed the full-body scanners, and I complied because I just wanted to get home for Christmas.
Then, they started requiring social security numbers when buying plane tickets.
Then, they began keeping all air travellers' fingerprints and retina scans on file...
The question is not against whom they're discriminating (clearly, that's not applicable in this case), it's to what length they (and, by extension, we) are willing to go.
They first made us run our shoes through the X-Ray machine, and I complied because it wasn't that big a deal.
Then, they installed the full-body scanners, and I complied because I just wanted to get home for Christmas.
Then, they started requiring social security numbers when buying plane tickets.
Then, they began keeping all air travellers' fingerprints and retina scans on file...
The question is not against whom they're discriminating (clearly, that's not applicable in this case), it's to what length they (and, by extension, we) are willing to go.
While you're slippery slope description is entirely valid on it's own. It's not the gist of the quote.
This is about apathy towards injustices that don't directly impact you and a lack of foresight. I.e. Wow that's so wrong, I'd raise a stink if it happened to me.
This is about apathy towards injustices that don't directly impact you and a lack of foresight. I.e. Wow that's so wrong, I'd raise a stink if it happened to me.
Yes, but it all hinges on when they 'discriminate against someone else'. They are discriminating against EVERYONE, is my point. But oh well.
The 'someone else' is air travellers. When a major terrorist plot succeeds using a car, cell phone, or computer, a different group will suffer.
The question at hand is, "What is acceptable in the name of defending ourselves against terrorism?" And "How effective do these measures have to be to be worth the tradeoff?" and "Who is accountable for measuring and deciding that?"
It makes sense to make a principled case even if the problem currently limited to air travellers. If "oversight is unnecessary, just do whatever you think will keep people safe" gets enshrined in popular opinion, it's going to be ugly when they get to the internet.
The question at hand is, "What is acceptable in the name of defending ourselves against terrorism?" And "How effective do these measures have to be to be worth the tradeoff?" and "Who is accountable for measuring and deciding that?"
It makes sense to make a principled case even if the problem currently limited to air travellers. If "oversight is unnecessary, just do whatever you think will keep people safe" gets enshrined in popular opinion, it's going to be ugly when they get to the internet.
"How effective do these measures have to be to be worth the tradeoff?"
More effective than "security theater".
More effective than "security theater".
If only someone were accountable for measuring that . . .
[deleted]
>I guess we could all print fake boarding passes, though.
That would actually be really effective. What's a good upcoming holiday to pull that as an act of civil disobedience? Thanksgiving? Thanksgiving might be an ideal day to reassert our belief in freedom as a people. Not flag-waving, not heavily political, just stopping by the airport to wish our loved ones off with a fake boarding pass.
And refusing the scanner.
That would actually be really effective. What's a good upcoming holiday to pull that as an act of civil disobedience? Thanksgiving? Thanksgiving might be an ideal day to reassert our belief in freedom as a people. Not flag-waving, not heavily political, just stopping by the airport to wish our loved ones off with a fake boarding pass.
And refusing the scanner.
Yeah, but what are you going to do if you're going overseas? Take a ship? :/
You know, you are an adult know - you are the person who should stand up to them (I won't, I don't care to fly)
The pat down vs. backscatter machine issue is interesting because it opens up so many avenues for nonviolent resistance (most of which would be far more effective if you got a bunch of people together to do it all at once at one major airport):
1. If your kids go through the machine, loudly accuse the TSA of child pornography. If your kids go through the patdown, loudly accuse the TSA of child molestation. (If you have a suitably eccentric or sympathetic local law enforcement head, like a county sheriff, this might be the way to go, but there's probably some sort of federal immunity against actual prosecution.)
2. Upon entering security, strip completely naked.
3. Opt for the pat down and take a dive, claiming the screener hurt your testicles.
4. Opt for the pat down; pretend to enjoy it.
Note that, like most forms of nonviolent resistance, many of these can get you arrested or at least stop you from making your flight. Getting arrested to make a point is a proud tradition, however. And unlike a mere protest, these kinds of actions can sabotage the TSA or potentially cripple air travel if you get a large enough coordinated protest.
1. If your kids go through the machine, loudly accuse the TSA of child pornography. If your kids go through the patdown, loudly accuse the TSA of child molestation. (If you have a suitably eccentric or sympathetic local law enforcement head, like a county sheriff, this might be the way to go, but there's probably some sort of federal immunity against actual prosecution.)
2. Upon entering security, strip completely naked.
3. Opt for the pat down and take a dive, claiming the screener hurt your testicles.
4. Opt for the pat down; pretend to enjoy it.
Note that, like most forms of nonviolent resistance, many of these can get you arrested or at least stop you from making your flight. Getting arrested to make a point is a proud tradition, however. And unlike a mere protest, these kinds of actions can sabotage the TSA or potentially cripple air travel if you get a large enough coordinated protest.
Jesus, guys, this is supposed to be a startup forum. Just create and sell aluminum underwear, you'll make a killing and what are they going to do? Outlaw underwear, or force you to take it off?
Realistically? Once they see that the strip search machine isn't working on you, they'll go for a pat-down. What you really need is an aluminum codpiece. Preferably one with the phrase "What now, bitches?" engraved on it.
You'd probably be arrested out of sheer spite, but just think of all the blog pageviews you would get later! Add enough advertising and try to create secondary drama with some followup letters to the TSA, and you could make a fair amount of money with just audacity and a metal codpiece.
You'd probably be arrested out of sheer spite, but just think of all the blog pageviews you would get later! Add enough advertising and try to create secondary drama with some followup letters to the TSA, and you could make a fair amount of money with just audacity and a metal codpiece.
> You'd probably be arrested out of sheer spite
You're probably right, and this makes me very sad. For all the supposed rights US citizens fight to defend, both the TSA workers and air travelers are just rolling over at the threat of being called a "terrorist".
Keeping the public terrified makes for easy prey.
You're probably right, and this makes me very sad. For all the supposed rights US citizens fight to defend, both the TSA workers and air travelers are just rolling over at the threat of being called a "terrorist".
Keeping the public terrified makes for easy prey.
What we need, then, is a dedicated civil disobedience campaign against it. If just one person does it, it ruins their day, week, or even several months dealing with the court battles. If 100 people do an act of civil disobedience, it becomes a movement; it might make some more significant news, attract some more significant attention.
If a thousand, or ten thousand people engage in civil disobedience, it starts to put a real strain on the system. It overwhelms the TSA. The court costs become prohibitive.
Why do we have so many people going to a rally in DC that won't really do anything (rallys almost never do)? And most of them will likely meekly go through security, without a fuss, on their way there. Why don't we instead organize 10,000 people to take a flight on the same day, and all wear aluminum jock straps and bras, or strip nude as they go through security? This would demonstrate how ridiculous the system is; this would help overburden an already overly expensive system to the point of breaking.
But of course, it's easy to talk tough on the internet, and a lot harder to get people to actually do anything. We all have our jobs to do, families to support. We have rallies for "truthiness" to go to. Or some of us don't even know where to start; don't know how to assemble such a group, and get them to follow through with it.
But perhaps we should put all that aside for freedom's sake, and go out, and disobey authority in a civil manner; it's our country, and we need to take it back.
If a thousand, or ten thousand people engage in civil disobedience, it starts to put a real strain on the system. It overwhelms the TSA. The court costs become prohibitive.
Why do we have so many people going to a rally in DC that won't really do anything (rallys almost never do)? And most of them will likely meekly go through security, without a fuss, on their way there. Why don't we instead organize 10,000 people to take a flight on the same day, and all wear aluminum jock straps and bras, or strip nude as they go through security? This would demonstrate how ridiculous the system is; this would help overburden an already overly expensive system to the point of breaking.
But of course, it's easy to talk tough on the internet, and a lot harder to get people to actually do anything. We all have our jobs to do, families to support. We have rallies for "truthiness" to go to. Or some of us don't even know where to start; don't know how to assemble such a group, and get them to follow through with it.
But perhaps we should put all that aside for freedom's sake, and go out, and disobey authority in a civil manner; it's our country, and we need to take it back.
Being arrested is not the same as being indicted. Pulling a prank like this might put you in handcuffs for a while, but if you have the time, it may still be worth it.
you'd probably be arrested
You'd be required to remove it - like you're sometimes required to remove a belt, or boots, or anything with metal in it for that matter.
You'd be required to remove it - like you're sometimes required to remove a belt, or boots, or anything with metal in it for that matter.
No, seriously, I think you have a point here: Can we manufacture clothing and/or underwear that at least partially blocks the backscatter X-rays?
These already exist! No claim of efficacy on my part.
http://www.rockyflatsgear.com/mens-brief-radiation-blocker.h...
http://www.rockyflatsgear.com/mens-brief-radiation-blocker.h...
http://achewood.com/index.php?date=05192006
I've been waiting for an opportunity to bust that out...
I've been waiting for an opportunity to bust that out...
Better than that: silicon penis enlargers.
But it will a short time before someone makes an explosive one.
But it will a short time before someone makes an explosive one.
For #4, depending on who is doing the pat down, you might not have to pretend to enjoy it.
I'm sure they'll use an agent of the same gender they perceive you are. But what if you're gay? Will they give you someone of the opposite sex?
But then again - and I'm unfortunately stereoptyping here - but who many attractive TSA agents of any gender have you seen?
But then again - and I'm unfortunately stereoptyping here - but who many attractive TSA agents of any gender have you seen?
> 2. Upon entering security, strip completely naked.
It would be amazing to get a campaign going of people doing this.
It would be amazing to get a campaign going of people doing this.
Or better yet - yell loudly "no I will not suck you" during the pat down.
Hopefully the TSA guys will make life hard for the sucker, perhaps enough to make him quit.
Hopefully the TSA guys will make life hard for the sucker, perhaps enough to make him quit.
It's hard to put into words how insane these are. Is the TSA merely a jobs program? Are the devices just corporate welfare? Is there an actual concerted effort by the inner party (who ride in carriages--private jets) to psychologically subjugate the middle class? Are policy makers actually under the impression that these are good rather than evil/ridiculous/unAmerican/insane? (???) Really? I mean, what is the simplest way to prevent another 9/11? Steel cockpit doors and a communications shutoff between cockpit and everything outside. No physical threats possible = no terrorism. Problem solved.
But of course, terrorism isn't actually a problem and never was.
But of course, terrorism isn't actually a problem and never was.
I mean, what is the simplest way to prevent another 9/11? Steel cockpit doors and a communications shutoff between cockpit and everything outside.
Well you've still got the bomb-on-plane problem, which is what the latest three rounds of security increases have been in response to -- there was the shoe bomber, and then the liquid-mixture plot, and then the underpants bomber.
You'll note that none of these plots worked. Why? Because they were increasingly shitty bombs. Why were they increasingly shitty bombs? Because they've been progressively closing loopholes. The underpants bomber might have been successful if he were shoe bomber number two, but he wasn't, because the bomb-in-shoe loophole has been closed.
People like to use the words "security theater" a lot because it makes them feel clever, and yes, the TSA like any government department has its own particular forms of insanity. But there's actual security accomplished there too. In the 1980s it was possible to sneak a 747-destroying bomb into a plane in a suitcase... now they're reduced to sticking dynamite up their butts.
Also, communications shutoff between the cockpit and outside is crazy. What happens when there's a medical emergency onboard? Let 'em die because the pilots aren't allowed to know about anything that happens in the passenger cabin?
Well you've still got the bomb-on-plane problem, which is what the latest three rounds of security increases have been in response to -- there was the shoe bomber, and then the liquid-mixture plot, and then the underpants bomber.
You'll note that none of these plots worked. Why? Because they were increasingly shitty bombs. Why were they increasingly shitty bombs? Because they've been progressively closing loopholes. The underpants bomber might have been successful if he were shoe bomber number two, but he wasn't, because the bomb-in-shoe loophole has been closed.
People like to use the words "security theater" a lot because it makes them feel clever, and yes, the TSA like any government department has its own particular forms of insanity. But there's actual security accomplished there too. In the 1980s it was possible to sneak a 747-destroying bomb into a plane in a suitcase... now they're reduced to sticking dynamite up their butts.
Also, communications shutoff between the cockpit and outside is crazy. What happens when there's a medical emergency onboard? Let 'em die because the pilots aren't allowed to know about anything that happens in the passenger cabin?
> You'll note that none of these plots worked. Why? Because they were increasingly shitty bombs.
At the risk of the FBI stashing a tracking beacon in my car (ha! I don't even have a car!) I'm going to take your bait.
Richard Reid's bomb didn't fail because he had to hide it in his shoe, rather than doing the ol' Ramzi Yousef "hide it in the life jacket routine." Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab didn't fail because he had explosives shoved down his shorts.
They failed because they were untrained. These guys displayed a Carlos the Jackal level of buffoonery in their conduct. The July 21nd attackers didn't fail because of the crack police work that went on to murder Jean Charles de Menezes. They failed because they were too stupid to build bombs. (Who would want to target Hackney anyway? It's just a bunch of tyre shops and fish & chips.)
For the most part, people who want to do us harm aren't particularly smart. Bright people tend to have more opportunities in life and are less to see that all go up in a puff of smoke. Of the 9/11 hijackers, only one had a girlfriend. Atta was a trained architect, but for the most part they were a bunch of college dropouts. We aren't faced with some "evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds," we're faced with a bunch of bumbling fools with nothing better to do than kill themselves.
Look at the Aum Shinrikyo sarin attack. They had a deadly neurotoxin that they saw fit to unleash with pointy umbrellas and newspaper rolls. Good job team, way to unleash your crazy new age apocalypse.
It isn't a matter of loopholes getting closed. Attackers are simply dumb. Really dumb.
At the risk of the FBI stashing a tracking beacon in my car (ha! I don't even have a car!) I'm going to take your bait.
Richard Reid's bomb didn't fail because he had to hide it in his shoe, rather than doing the ol' Ramzi Yousef "hide it in the life jacket routine." Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab didn't fail because he had explosives shoved down his shorts.
They failed because they were untrained. These guys displayed a Carlos the Jackal level of buffoonery in their conduct. The July 21nd attackers didn't fail because of the crack police work that went on to murder Jean Charles de Menezes. They failed because they were too stupid to build bombs. (Who would want to target Hackney anyway? It's just a bunch of tyre shops and fish & chips.)
For the most part, people who want to do us harm aren't particularly smart. Bright people tend to have more opportunities in life and are less to see that all go up in a puff of smoke. Of the 9/11 hijackers, only one had a girlfriend. Atta was a trained architect, but for the most part they were a bunch of college dropouts. We aren't faced with some "evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds," we're faced with a bunch of bumbling fools with nothing better to do than kill themselves.
Look at the Aum Shinrikyo sarin attack. They had a deadly neurotoxin that they saw fit to unleash with pointy umbrellas and newspaper rolls. Good job team, way to unleash your crazy new age apocalypse.
It isn't a matter of loopholes getting closed. Attackers are simply dumb. Really dumb.
At least there are enough security against dumb attackers.
No.
Did you notice the part where some idiot smuggled plastic explosives on board a plane in his underwear? Security failed in this situation.
Did you notice the part where some idiot smuggled plastic explosives on board a plane in his underwear? Security failed in this situation.
now they're reduced to sticking dynamite up their butts.
If a guy is willing to blow up the plane he is flying on, do you really believe that living with a stick of dynamite shoved up his ass for his final 5 hours is going to be a deterrent?
This is exactly what security theater refers to: security procedures that do not have internal consistency and hence, are nothing but show.
If a guy is willing to blow up the plane he is flying on, do you really believe that living with a stick of dynamite shoved up his ass for his final 5 hours is going to be a deterrent?
This is exactly what security theater refers to: security procedures that do not have internal consistency and hence, are nothing but show.
If a guy is willing to blow up the plane he is flying on, do you really believe that living with a stick of dynamite shoved up his ass for his final 5 hours is going to be a deterrent?
Nope. But I do think that a butt bomb is significantly less of a threat than a suitcase bomb. The Lockerbie bomb ripped a 747 to pieces. I'm no explosives expert, but I imagine the worst thing an anus-sized bomb could do would be to punch a hole in the side, which would probably be survivable.
Nope. But I do think that a butt bomb is significantly less of a threat than a suitcase bomb. The Lockerbie bomb ripped a 747 to pieces. I'm no explosives expert, but I imagine the worst thing an anus-sized bomb could do would be to punch a hole in the side, which would probably be survivable.
I'm not speaking from personal experience on this, but if you think it's far-fetched that someone couldn't fit one, if not multiple entire sticks of dynamite up their ass, you should be glad to have lived a sheltered life.
You need surprisingly little actual explosive if you know what you're doing. Which is, you would not use the explosive itself to do the damage, rather as a propellant for shrapnel. I don't know if you've ever handled a grenade but they're quite small, about the size of an apple. You could easily manufacture one with the correct form factor for uhh, insertion. And if you were smart enough to do that, you'd also be smart enough to book a seat in the right place on the plane. Or even, use a shaped charge...
How so? Both are more than enough to down the plane.
Planes have depressurized at altitude and landed safely, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_811. The plane depressurized and sucked several rows of seats out. Passengers were sucked through the engine. But still, it landed safely and most people on board survived.
Yeah, it would be scary if you were on this flight... but if you want to kill 500 people there are a lot easier ways than sticking explosives up your ass and detonating them on the plane.
Yeah, it would be scary if you were on this flight... but if you want to kill 500 people there are a lot easier ways than sticking explosives up your ass and detonating them on the plane.
Good point. If you were serious about terrorism, and had an ounce of intelligence, why would you go after a plane at all? There are a huge number of other things you could attack, that are much easier targets. Football games have a lot of people packed in a small space, and if you set off a panic with a bomb or something, more people would be injured. If you sneak into a big party and spike the punch with poison, it would scare the crap out of people -- is nowhere safe? Or sneak a bomb into someone else's carry-on luggage, and set it off when they're waiting in the security line. What's the TSA going to do? Make a security line to get in the security line?
Making people afraid to attend football games or parties is a lot less costly than making them afraid to fly. Shut down the airports and you shut down the economy--look what happened with the Iceland volcano. And they have trains.
Yes and no. Making football games inaccessible to the masses would lead to revolt faster than making life difficult for people who fly. To a large extent, people who fly regularly are rather self-disciplined and have invested a lot of money in getting where they're going. Football-goers can be drunk, are already hyper-emotional and riots and hooliganry is not unknown there hm?
Bread and circuses - flying is the bread, but team spectator sports are the circuses.
Bread and circuses - flying is the bread, but team spectator sports are the circuses.
Can the plane stay strucurally stable when a chunk of it has been blown off. Blow up in the right spot and you have a plane split in 2, and it doesn't matter if it's depressurized.
> the latest three rounds of security increases
But there haven't been security increases! They are just targeting one of an infinite number of threats, making their coverage with each of these specific measures effectively zero. Remember: the 9/11 hijackers didn't need bombs.
But there haven't been security increases! They are just targeting one of an infinite number of threats, making their coverage with each of these specific measures effectively zero. Remember: the 9/11 hijackers didn't need bombs.
They are just targeting one of an infinite number of threats
That's silly, there's a finite number of threats to airliners. Excluding external threats like missiles (which are themselves defended against by other agencies) you've got two basic avenues: bombs and hijackings.
Hijackings require weapons. The first hijackers used guns, so the TSA (and other similar agencies around the world but I'll use the TSA as an example) made it hard to get guns on board. So the next round used knives. So the TSA made it hard to get knives on board. With the damn near impossibility of getting knives on board plus the fact that passengers in a hijacking are now much more inclined to fight back, hijacking is pretty much fully defended against.
Bombings require bombs. The earliest bombers used suitcase bombs, which is ideal from their point of view because they can be very large. But security screening got better and suitcase bombs are too difficult nowadays. So they switched to shoe bombs. But now they're impossible. So they switched to underpants bombs. And with the latest (overly invasive) techniques that's more or less impossible too. The size of the largest bomb you can smuggle on board keeps decreasing, and the danger keeps getting smaller and smaller -- whatever you can stick up your butt it's never gonna blow a sizeable hole in the side of an airliner.
It's a finite space of threats, and they're actually doing a pretty good job at defending against them. That's why since 9/11 there have been N foiled attempts to attack airliners, and zero successful ones (I think there was a Russian exception).
That's silly, there's a finite number of threats to airliners. Excluding external threats like missiles (which are themselves defended against by other agencies) you've got two basic avenues: bombs and hijackings.
Hijackings require weapons. The first hijackers used guns, so the TSA (and other similar agencies around the world but I'll use the TSA as an example) made it hard to get guns on board. So the next round used knives. So the TSA made it hard to get knives on board. With the damn near impossibility of getting knives on board plus the fact that passengers in a hijacking are now much more inclined to fight back, hijacking is pretty much fully defended against.
Bombings require bombs. The earliest bombers used suitcase bombs, which is ideal from their point of view because they can be very large. But security screening got better and suitcase bombs are too difficult nowadays. So they switched to shoe bombs. But now they're impossible. So they switched to underpants bombs. And with the latest (overly invasive) techniques that's more or less impossible too. The size of the largest bomb you can smuggle on board keeps decreasing, and the danger keeps getting smaller and smaller -- whatever you can stick up your butt it's never gonna blow a sizeable hole in the side of an airliner.
It's a finite space of threats, and they're actually doing a pretty good job at defending against them. That's why since 9/11 there have been N foiled attempts to attack airliners, and zero successful ones (I think there was a Russian exception).
See, this is where you've blown your cover and have shown yourself as a troll. What you're saying is that hijackers can only be passengers and therefore these security measures are good and getting better. There are so many loopholes as yet unclosed that further molesting passengers, and this now can be qualified as molestation, is a diminishing returns.
Someone else here said and I agree, this is really starting to feel like more overt discouragement from air travel. It's almost as if the TSA has decided that the best way to stop hijacking and bombing of passenger planes is to eliminate passenger planes altogether. I sure as hell will not want to travel to the US by air anymore.
Someone else here said and I agree, this is really starting to feel like more overt discouragement from air travel. It's almost as if the TSA has decided that the best way to stop hijacking and bombing of passenger planes is to eliminate passenger planes altogether. I sure as hell will not want to travel to the US by air anymore.
The size of the largest bomb you can smuggle on board keeps decreasing, and the danger keeps getting smaller and smaller -- whatever you can stick up your butt it's never gonna blow a sizeable hole in the side of an airliner.
Wait until somebody implants Semtex into the boobs.
Wait until somebody implants Semtex into the boobs.
I was just told by the nice folks at CNN that 6mg of PETN is enough to blow through solid steel twice as thick as airliner skin. I'm afraid cavity searches are our only option here.
I think the CNN report showed 6 grams making a big dent in steel twice as thick as an airliner fuselage.
Out of curiosity, how many bombs in suitcases did we get back when people could do that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Airliner_bombings
I suppose the time when people could do that is at earliest, the most recent of those incidents.
I suppose the time when people could do that is at earliest, the most recent of those incidents.
Well, on the other hand, in all cases the bomber waltzed onto the plane without a care in the world and was stopped by passenger action. All that extra security was for nothing.
Remember that 9/11 was only possible because passengers believed they were in a conventional hijacking situation.
Remember that 9/11 was only possible because passengers believed they were in a conventional hijacking situation.
It's called 'security theater' because it does nothing to keep anyone safe. It just moves the security problem from the airplane cabin to the line of hundreds of densely-packed people snaking back and forth outside the TSA checkpoint.
I mean, what is the simplest way to prevent another 9/11? Steel cockpit doors and a communications shutoff between cockpit and everything outside.
Another 9/11 scenario is going to be near impossible to pull off. Pre-9/11 hijackings often left the passengers with some hope of living through the situation so they would be docile and controllable. Post-9/11 passengers will not be docile and the hijackers will have to effectively control the entire plane with force.
There is still run of the mill blow up the airplane style terrorism to watch out for, but that was around before 9/11 and will be around for long time after.
Another 9/11 scenario is going to be near impossible to pull off. Pre-9/11 hijackings often left the passengers with some hope of living through the situation so they would be docile and controllable. Post-9/11 passengers will not be docile and the hijackers will have to effectively control the entire plane with force.
There is still run of the mill blow up the airplane style terrorism to watch out for, but that was around before 9/11 and will be around for long time after.
Not exactly. Recall prior to the hijacking being done by brute force on the pilots, most airline terrorism was bombs on planes. If we don't have any security what-so-ever, people could just bring hand grenades onto airplanes and I am 100% certain you could crash them that way.
There is a safe middle ground here, and metal detectors were definitely in it. Full body scans? Not so much.
There is a safe middle ground here, and metal detectors were definitely in it. Full body scans? Not so much.
It has nothing to do with jobs programs/corporate welfare. Remember there were security people before the TSA (just not as many) and the TSA was created in the post-9/11 panic.
This, like most aviation security, is just security-theater. The American people were scared and so elected officials, realizing they couldn't realistically secure aviation, come up with a bunch of "procedures" that's supposed to make the general public feel more comfortable. In the end, it's about votes.
This, like most aviation security, is just security-theater. The American people were scared and so elected officials, realizing they couldn't realistically secure aviation, come up with a bunch of "procedures" that's supposed to make the general public feel more comfortable. In the end, it's about votes.
Yes. No. No. Yes. Yes. Agreed.
I am wondering how long it is before people who like to get felt up are using this as there way to get their jollies.
I'm also wondering how long it before someone sues the TSA for improperly touching them (too long, suggestively, etc.) or for injuring them (moving too fast and bumping the resistance).
Edit: I hadn't even considered that maybe people who like to feel others up with sign up to work for the TSA
I'm also wondering how long it before someone sues the TSA for improperly touching them (too long, suggestively, etc.) or for injuring them (moving too fast and bumping the resistance).
Edit: I hadn't even considered that maybe people who like to feel others up with sign up to work for the TSA
I just called my congressman and senators. If you disagree with what the TSA is doing, I suggest you do the same.
Might want to wait a couple days to make sure your congresspeople still have their jobs...
Senators are Congressmen. Did you mean your representatives?
Actually, by convention, Congressman or Congresswoman refers to the Representatives only.
Congressman, n.
A man who is a member of the U.S. Congress, especially of the House of Representatives.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/congressman
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/congressman
On the plus side, you can finally (kind of) make a stand against all of this security theater by opting for the pat-down:
I'm not the one who has to touch some else's testicles. You want screen me? Then you have to do the dirty work.
I'm not the one who has to touch some else's testicles. You want screen me? Then you have to do the dirty work.
[deleted]
It has been nearly 12 years since I've visited the US. I was hoping to go there in 2003 but unfortunately the TSA and DHS put a stop to that. I've made a conscious decision that I do not want to go to the United States if I'm going to be treated that way. As beautiful and wonderful the country and it's people are, it boils down to a choice. Either you're happy being subject to what in anywhere else would qualify as sexual assault or taking pornographic pictures, or you don't go. I choose not to go.
Should all of this end I would love to go to New York, San Francisco, LA and the many other wonderful places in the USA, but until then I'm not happy to go. The only thing that would get me there would be specific unavoidable business.
However, I would like to thank the TSA and DHS for the opportunities I have had to visit all over Canada (another great North American country with great people) and I'm hoping to hit the Carribean and Mexico next year.
It's a definite loss for me that I may never return to the US, but I have to make a stand somewhere.
Should all of this end I would love to go to New York, San Francisco, LA and the many other wonderful places in the USA, but until then I'm not happy to go. The only thing that would get me there would be specific unavoidable business.
However, I would like to thank the TSA and DHS for the opportunities I have had to visit all over Canada (another great North American country with great people) and I'm hoping to hit the Carribean and Mexico next year.
It's a definite loss for me that I may never return to the US, but I have to make a stand somewhere.
I pretty much feel the same as you, I would like to go to America but to me it's just not worth going through an American airport. The alternative ive come up with is to fly to Canada or Mexico and then drive into America where (as far as I know) there aren't these scanners.
Ditto. I've previously had to go through the US many time on my way from Canada to Australia.
The next time I make that trip I will be paying extra to ensure a direct flight from Toronto to Australia.
I will also be avoiding any other sort of travel to the US. It's not much in terms of a protest, but it's better than nothing...
The next time I make that trip I will be paying extra to ensure a direct flight from Toronto to Australia.
I will also be avoiding any other sort of travel to the US. It's not much in terms of a protest, but it's better than nothing...
This isn't the kind of freedom I served my country for.
If this article is true, it's a highly-disturbing downfall for American civil liberties.
If this article is true, it's a highly-disturbing downfall for American civil liberties.
For kicks, a little while ago, I refused one of these machines (you can't really cause a "ruckus" too often when flying for work).
The guy just shrugged, gave me a quick pat down and let me through. I'd say about 30% of the people took the same option and received the same treatment. Same every time since I've that I've been through.
But the last time one guy made a big deal of how invasive the machine was (not rude, just loud about his refusal) and got the works (well, a rough pat down and then taken to one side). Obviously, this is a different case, he was just joking around with them. But I imagine this could easily have been a different story if one of the TSA officers couldn't handle a bit of humour (all too common, sadly).
Just saying.
These machines are a real problem for our privacy/society. But all the "horror" stories (not so much this one) we are seeing are mostly the result of people making a fuss, and getting rough treatment.
We should just refuse these, politely and quietly, and at such a volume all they can do is what they have done previously; give us a pat down.
Fortunately it looks like the UK air services are "rebelling" somewhat against "draconian security measures". It's not 100% certain what they are talking about, but I got the impression this covered resisting the spread of these machines in the UK.
Which makes a change :)
The guy just shrugged, gave me a quick pat down and let me through. I'd say about 30% of the people took the same option and received the same treatment. Same every time since I've that I've been through.
But the last time one guy made a big deal of how invasive the machine was (not rude, just loud about his refusal) and got the works (well, a rough pat down and then taken to one side). Obviously, this is a different case, he was just joking around with them. But I imagine this could easily have been a different story if one of the TSA officers couldn't handle a bit of humour (all too common, sadly).
Just saying.
These machines are a real problem for our privacy/society. But all the "horror" stories (not so much this one) we are seeing are mostly the result of people making a fuss, and getting rough treatment.
We should just refuse these, politely and quietly, and at such a volume all they can do is what they have done previously; give us a pat down.
Fortunately it looks like the UK air services are "rebelling" somewhat against "draconian security measures". It's not 100% certain what they are talking about, but I got the impression this covered resisting the spread of these machines in the UK.
Which makes a change :)
I said the same thing a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, the story you're commenting on provides context that invalidates that point: the TSA has stepped up the intrusiveness of the "opt-out" pat-downs. According to Jeffrey Goldberg, who is probably not making this up, they are deliberately touching people's crotches in an effort to discourage people from taking the pat-down.
Fortunately, this sort of thing tends to attract the wrong kind of attention after a while. When enough people find your behaviour offensive enough, they will stop using your service. That will hit your bottom line, and that will make it bad for business.
Maybe most people will tolerate this kind of abuse even if they don't like it, but even running 90% full planes instead of 100% is a serious dent in your profits in this sort of industry. Sadly, I suspect the comments by the various air industry executives in the UK over the past week or so are motivated more by falling profits than any ethical problem with these devices, but if the end result is the same in practice, I welcome their opposition anyway.
Also, as someone pointed out on (I think) the BBC News story about those comments, it is not exactly in the airlines' interests to have their planes blown up. If we assume that the executives at such businesses are at least reasonably aware of the real effectiveness of these security measures, the fact that they are still now openly saying things have gone too far is quite telling.
Maybe most people will tolerate this kind of abuse even if they don't like it, but even running 90% full planes instead of 100% is a serious dent in your profits in this sort of industry. Sadly, I suspect the comments by the various air industry executives in the UK over the past week or so are motivated more by falling profits than any ethical problem with these devices, but if the end result is the same in practice, I welcome their opposition anyway.
Also, as someone pointed out on (I think) the BBC News story about those comments, it is not exactly in the airlines' interests to have their planes blown up. If we assume that the executives at such businesses are at least reasonably aware of the real effectiveness of these security measures, the fact that they are still now openly saying things have gone too far is quite telling.
I think then it becomes a resistance thing. We refuse in such numbers that these pat downs become too much to handle.
It at least takes the fight to them.
Unfortunately such a strategy needs strong adoption; and sadly most of modern society seem too apathetic.
It at least takes the fight to them.
Unfortunately such a strategy needs strong adoption; and sadly most of modern society seem too apathetic.
The dangerous thing about security theatre is that it distracts resources and personnel away from the things that would actually improve security, in the interests of PR and cosmetics based on inconveniencing the non-terrorists.
As the author points out, detailed background checks would be far more effective than either looking at or touching people's privates.
As the author points out, detailed background checks would be far more effective than either looking at or touching people's privates.
But would it be less of an invasion of our privacy?
Yes. Simple background checks based on public records and customer history / credit checks are things that we already accept every time we deal with any financial institution or government agency. A programmatic check would exclude the vast majority of travellers as potential terrorists. And manual inspection by a junior intelligence analyst most of the rest, leaving senior analysts to evaluate more serious threat cases.
That would be far less intrusive and far less invasive a procedure than violating the physical privacy of very many and in some cases every traveller, which is where this is already heading at several major airports.
That would be far less intrusive and far less invasive a procedure than violating the physical privacy of very many and in some cases every traveller, which is where this is already heading at several major airports.
Hmm.. You mean like "Your dad is from Egypt, let's put a gps sender on your car and treat you 'special' at the airport from now on, since our background check thinks you're part of the target group"?
Seriously, how would a background check work? What are you looking for? Ethnic background obviously would be the biggest failure (although still done, see above). Credit history? Police records (international? Good luck with that)?
Either you disclose what you are looking at and "the bad guys" can trick your check. Or you don't and you're back on the security by obscurity road, doing "arbitrary" (to the public) things, annoying probably just as much.
I think this idea is just as flawed as the current procedure. And I surely hope no one is starting something like that, since this whole security BS seems like a race of arms to me lately..
Seriously, how would a background check work? What are you looking for? Ethnic background obviously would be the biggest failure (although still done, see above). Credit history? Police records (international? Good luck with that)?
Either you disclose what you are looking at and "the bad guys" can trick your check. Or you don't and you're back on the security by obscurity road, doing "arbitrary" (to the public) things, annoying probably just as much.
I think this idea is just as flawed as the current procedure. And I surely hope no one is starting something like that, since this whole security BS seems like a race of arms to me lately..
You need to take an exclusion approach. Most passengers on US air flights have clearly established records. If you can take the majority of people out of the current overkill security theatre, that means they can go through standard-level security queues quickly (note no one is proposing dropping security here).
I dread standing in the densely packed security lines at DIA. A single suicide bomber could kill several hundred people on a busy day there without ever passing a security checkpoint (as the author points out this is now the bigger risk). If you can reduce the number of people who need to remove shoes, liquids and have back-scatter and pat-downs to a small minority, then everyone will be safer.
I'm a libertarian (in the Jefferson sense). But I agree to reasonable security checks voluntarily by choosing to fly. But invasion of privacy has gone too far when someone makes me walk through a Dick Measuring Machine or is "meeting resistance" for the sake of public relations theatre.
the coiled, closely packed lines at TSA screening sites are the most dangerous places in airports, completely unprotected from a terrorist attack -- a terrorist attack that would serve the same purpose (shutting down air travel) as an attack on board an aircraft.
I don't think this is true. The purpose of terrorism is to spread fear, the killing is only a byproduct. The reason hijackings and bombs on planes are so effective is that many people already fear planetrips. You're caught in a tin can that intuitively should drop to the ground instead of flying through the air ten kilometers above the ground with no way of getting out. The thought of a crazy guy with a bomb in his pants just waiting to detonate it makes the experience absolutely terrifying to a lot of people. They'll think about it every time the get on a plane even though the chance of dying in a terrorist attack is close to zero.
I don't think this is true. The purpose of terrorism is to spread fear, the killing is only a byproduct. The reason hijackings and bombs on planes are so effective is that many people already fear planetrips. You're caught in a tin can that intuitively should drop to the ground instead of flying through the air ten kilometers above the ground with no way of getting out. The thought of a crazy guy with a bomb in his pants just waiting to detonate it makes the experience absolutely terrifying to a lot of people. They'll think about it every time the get on a plane even though the chance of dying in a terrorist attack is close to zero.
The IRA managed to cause plenty of fear by bombing shops and train stations. From Wikipedia:
The Troubles' impact on the ordinary people of Northern Ireland produced such psychological trauma that the city of Belfast had been compared to London during the Blitz. [104] The stress resulting from bomb attacks, street disturbances, security checkpoints, and the constant military presence had the strongest effect on children and young adults. [105] In addition to the violence and intimidation, there was chronic unemployment and a severe housing shortage. Vandalism was also a major problem. In the 1970s there were 10,000 vandalised empty houses in Belfast alone. Most of the vandals were aged between eight and thirteen. [106] Activities for young people were limited, with pubs fortified and cinemas closed. Just to go shopping in the city centre required passing through security gates and being subjected to body searches.
The Troubles' impact on the ordinary people of Northern Ireland produced such psychological trauma that the city of Belfast had been compared to London during the Blitz. [104] The stress resulting from bomb attacks, street disturbances, security checkpoints, and the constant military presence had the strongest effect on children and young adults. [105] In addition to the violence and intimidation, there was chronic unemployment and a severe housing shortage. Vandalism was also a major problem. In the 1970s there were 10,000 vandalised empty houses in Belfast alone. Most of the vandals were aged between eight and thirteen. [106] Activities for young people were limited, with pubs fortified and cinemas closed. Just to go shopping in the city centre required passing through security gates and being subjected to body searches.
Of course the unsaid is that the TSAI is really just trying to protect those expensive metal flying tubes, not the people who fly in them. If you look at it from perspective, their policies seem rational and consistent.
How far out to sea does one have to be for the TSA to not have jurisdiction? Has anyone thought of an airline that ferrys passengers out to a ship off the coast and the airplanes take off from there?
How much does an aircraft carrier cost? It seems this would be extremely expensive, but then, airplanes themselves are extremely expensive so it kind of comes with the territory. But I wonder if we're talking orders of magnitude higher costs.
Not sure how crazy of an idea this is; it came to mind and I figured I'd throw it out there. :)
How much does an aircraft carrier cost? It seems this would be extremely expensive, but then, airplanes themselves are extremely expensive so it kind of comes with the territory. But I wonder if we're talking orders of magnitude higher costs.
Not sure how crazy of an idea this is; it came to mind and I figured I'd throw it out there. :)
Ordinary aircraft aren't compatible with carriers--you need a tailhook to land, at the very least. You need significantly more talented pilots to land on carriers. You need billions of dollars in aircraft carriers. (The most extravagant navy in the world has about 12. How many carriers do you need to make an airline out of it?) The shock of catapult-assisted takeoff is not for everyone; the passengers would need to be in decent health. Add all of this to the fact that airlines are only marginally profitable in the first place, and it's just completely infeasible.
If you just don't fly commercial, it's a non-issue, even at regular airports (see recent news blurb about Steve Jobs in Japan with throwing stars).
Nobody goes through TSA to get on a private plane. It makes me wonder how many members of Congress and senior TSA leadership actually have to go through the same processes us plebes do...
Nobody goes through TSA to get on a private plane. It makes me wonder how many members of Congress and senior TSA leadership actually have to go through the same processes us plebes do...
I think the length of runway required to get a 747 off the ground would make this prohibitive (as if the cost of an aircraft carrier didn't already). Nimitz class carriers are just over 1,000 ft in length. A quick Google search reveals that a 747 needs about 6x that for safe takeoff/landing.
Yeah, turns out the cost is also more than an order of magnitude- an aircraft carrier is somewhere in the high single digit billions of dollars, where as your jumbo jet is in the hundreds of millions....
An aircraft carrier would be extremely expensive, and as other commenters point out, has logistical issues. For your money, you might do better to build a pontoon raft out of some of the Ghost Fleet freighter ships: http://tinyurl.com/lof685
It's been proposed and is probably feasible: http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/10/22/crazy-or-brillian...
I think it might be possible. For an Aircraft carrier most of the cost is in the nuclear reactor, weapons, radar, and all the fighting stuff.
If you made a static rig that's only purpose was being a runway, I think it might be possible.
If you made a static rig that's only purpose was being a runway, I think it might be possible.
International waters start 12 miles from shore, so I'm pretty sure (but not positive) there would be no jurisdiction there.
One of many problems is that a lot of places are not near an ocean, so that rules out an aircraft carrier :)
One of many problems is that a lot of places are not near an ocean, so that rules out an aircraft carrier :)
Presumably someone (Coast Guard/border patrol/TSA/etc.) would have the authority to inspect the ferries and passengers headed to these offshore airports even if they didn't have jurisdiction over the airport itself.
Instead of an aircraft carrier (which is nowhere near big enough for an airliner) I suggest Bermuda.
Now that the feds have the legal right to grope everyone's testicles and vagina without a warrant, this is a pretty good job for pedophiles and perverts to take. If you are a pedophile or pervert, where else do you have not just the legal right but the obligation to grope the sexual parts of the general public and be called a hero for doing so.
Not many people calling them heros here...
EPIC is fighting the machines in court and online.
They have an incident report page:
http://epic.org/bodyscanner/incident_report/
They have an incident report page:
http://epic.org/bodyscanner/incident_report/
Check out their "Stop Whole Body Imaging" page as well:
http://www.stopdigitalstripsearches.org/
http://www.stopdigitalstripsearches.org/
The whole thing seems highly creepy. I suspect that the advanced pat downs will eventually be removed and there will be no option but to go through the machine, because the prospect of some member of airport staff doing advanced pat downs on children has obviously dodgy implications which could attract lawsuits and some very unpleasant job applicants.
As the article says, a determined terrorist will get through either of these procedures anyhow.
As the article says, a determined terrorist will get through either of these procedures anyhow.
I was hoping this was going to be an article about backlash, or a new approach to security screening.
Instead, Resistance was literally a euphemism for the author's penis.
Instead, Resistance was literally a euphemism for the author's penis.
> Instead, Resistance was literally a euphemism for the author's penis.
I was under the impression it was his testicles.
From the article: 'That's funny," I said, "because 'The Resistance' is the actual name I've given to my testicles."
I was under the impression it was his testicles.
From the article: 'That's funny," I said, "because 'The Resistance' is the actual name I've given to my testicles."
I always opt-out of the back-scatter machine, and none of the TSA officers at SFO or BOS have ever seemed to think it anything out of the ordinary. The impression I've gotten is that they see the two methods (pat-down and back-scatter) as relatively interchangeable, though the former is obviously more inconvenient for them.
They already have to do the pat-down for anyone who trips up the machines (or who can't, for instance because of implants or a wheelchair).
If you want to upset the guard and if your ego can handle it, flirt with the security. As he pats you down, a little grunt and a roll of the shoulders as if involuntary. If you can manage it, a big smile and a wink when he finishes it so that his colleagues can see.
Getting angry or offended will cause them to get aggressive in response, and they have procedures in place to deal with that. They almost certainly don't have a procedure in place for making them feel like they've just taken part in a little gay fondling.
Getting angry or offended will cause them to get aggressive in response, and they have procedures in place to deal with that. They almost certainly don't have a procedure in place for making them feel like they've just taken part in a little gay fondling.
Cue fond personal memories of living in South Africa in the 80s...
Used to be so bad you made sure to not wear jeans&t-shirt if you were going to fly just so you didn't get pulled off the line by the Uzi wielding thugs and miss your flight.
Then they freed the great terrorist Nelson.
Yeah, that's right... Here in .za we felt exactly the same way about him as you yanks do about the great terrorist Osama.
Fast forward sixteen years later and guns are rarely visible in the airport, check-in is smooth as silk (though we seem to have inherited the idiocy with the water bottles from you) and the last time anything got blown up here was when I forgot an aubergine in the oven for too long.
They're having y'all on. The thing with tyranny is that until someone says "no thank you" it grinds on relentlessly becoming more and more expensive to stop with each passing year.
Used to be so bad you made sure to not wear jeans&t-shirt if you were going to fly just so you didn't get pulled off the line by the Uzi wielding thugs and miss your flight.
Then they freed the great terrorist Nelson.
Yeah, that's right... Here in .za we felt exactly the same way about him as you yanks do about the great terrorist Osama.
Fast forward sixteen years later and guns are rarely visible in the airport, check-in is smooth as silk (though we seem to have inherited the idiocy with the water bottles from you) and the last time anything got blown up here was when I forgot an aubergine in the oven for too long.
They're having y'all on. The thing with tyranny is that until someone says "no thank you" it grinds on relentlessly becoming more and more expensive to stop with each passing year.
> Yeah, that's right... Here in .za we felt exactly the same way about him as you yanks do about the great terrorist Osama.
"We" being who, exactly?
"We" being who, exactly?
Us middle class white folk who didn't understand what all the fuss was really about till years later.
So... the folks who benefited from apartheid don't much like Nelson Mandela? That's /shocking/.
According to ABC News [1], these new "pat-downs" will not likely prevent someone like the Underwear Bomber from boarding.
1: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/tsa-pat-procedure-airports/story?id...
1: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/tsa-pat-procedure-airports/story?id...
* ... because the coiled, closely packed lines at TSA screening sites are the most dangerous places in airports, completely unprotected from a terrorist attack -- a terrorist attack that would serve the same purpose (shutting down air travel) as an attack on board an aircraft.*
This is a good point, but I don't completely agree with it. If terrorists can smuggle a bomb on board an airplane, they can probably smuggle tools on board that will allow them to break into the cockpit. Then (as we've seen), the plane itself can be used as a very large bomb. (Note that I am not venturing an opinion on whether backscatter imagers are a solution to this problem or whether the invasion of privacy is worth it even if they are.)
This is a good point, but I don't completely agree with it. If terrorists can smuggle a bomb on board an airplane, they can probably smuggle tools on board that will allow them to break into the cockpit. Then (as we've seen), the plane itself can be used as a very large bomb. (Note that I am not venturing an opinion on whether backscatter imagers are a solution to this problem or whether the invasion of privacy is worth it even if they are.)
In the history of air travel has anybody ever breached a secured airplane cockpit (of any sort?).
To the extent that we're concerned about the security of cockpits, maybe our efforts are best directed towards better cockpit doors instead of strip-search machines.
To the extent that we're concerned about the security of cockpits, maybe our efforts are best directed towards better cockpit doors instead of strip-search machines.
In the history of air travel has anybody ever breached a secured airplane cockpit (of any sort?).
Excluding the events of 9/11, how many times have terrorists hijacked an airplane and flown it into a building? All I'm trying to say here is that the sample size is very small. How do we deal with the risk of unlikely but catastrophic occurrences?
To the extent that we're concerned about the security of cockpits, maybe our efforts are best directed towards better cockpit doors instead of strip-search machines.
I agree with this. I think El Al uses a double-door system, for example.
Excluding the events of 9/11, how many times have terrorists hijacked an airplane and flown it into a building? All I'm trying to say here is that the sample size is very small. How do we deal with the risk of unlikely but catastrophic occurrences?
To the extent that we're concerned about the security of cockpits, maybe our efforts are best directed towards better cockpit doors instead of strip-search machines.
I agree with this. I think El Al uses a double-door system, for example.
I have a prosthetic leg, so I've been getting the secondary screening (i.e. pat-downs, bomb wipes, and wanding) for years. It's invasive, but the TSA agents don't grope your genitals. They don't even touch them. In fact, they're usually shy about touching "sensitive areas" (most of the inner thigh remains unexplored), and sometimes bordering on apologetic.
I get that every single time I fly, and even so, I would never opt for a backscatter machine. It's far more invasive. Having been through dozens of patdowns, I feel pretty sure that someone looking at a naked picture of me is a worse option.
I get that every single time I fly, and even so, I would never opt for a backscatter machine. It's far more invasive. Having been through dozens of patdowns, I feel pretty sure that someone looking at a naked picture of me is a worse option.
The point of the linked article is that this is changing, and the TSA agents are now instructed to grope your genitals.
(Not-so-farfetched) conspiracy theory alert
This has new policy hit a wall with the press and has gotten nothing by negative writeups. When it was announced, I made a statement, as did many others, that there would very soon be an "incident" that would let this cure. That appears to be happening right now with this worldwide blitz on Yemeni packages. One and done.
Two things here are very unfortunate:
1. This is one of those huge media events that take all the front page space and interrupt network programming. It's going to instil fear in some population and give merit to the security theater.
2. Interestingly, given that this is supposedly cargo, we're still not talking about systematically scrutinizing cargo. Even so, in a political context, I don't think anyone is going to sufficiently separate the two. Right now, the big lines are Richard Reid and Christmas Day Bomber.
No matter what happens now--letters to Congress, TSA abuse reports, journalistic stunts--I fully expect to get my bread buttered at the airport.
One more thing: there's a good post on the front page about incentives. How about a tax break for fondling or photo shoot on has to endure? Let's provide disincentives for the Fed to keep this up.
This has new policy hit a wall with the press and has gotten nothing by negative writeups. When it was announced, I made a statement, as did many others, that there would very soon be an "incident" that would let this cure. That appears to be happening right now with this worldwide blitz on Yemeni packages. One and done.
Two things here are very unfortunate:
1. This is one of those huge media events that take all the front page space and interrupt network programming. It's going to instil fear in some population and give merit to the security theater.
2. Interestingly, given that this is supposedly cargo, we're still not talking about systematically scrutinizing cargo. Even so, in a political context, I don't think anyone is going to sufficiently separate the two. Right now, the big lines are Richard Reid and Christmas Day Bomber.
No matter what happens now--letters to Congress, TSA abuse reports, journalistic stunts--I fully expect to get my bread buttered at the airport.
One more thing: there's a good post on the front page about incentives. How about a tax break for fondling or photo shoot on has to endure? Let's provide disincentives for the Fed to keep this up.
I sometimes wonder: say we removed all of security controls at the airports - how many more terrorist attacks would we actually see?
You know, I have a hard time caring much about this issue. I'm just not that attached to the privacy of my clothing. I'm no stripper/streaker, but so what if somebody sees me with my clothes off? They certainly won't be the first, or the last.
Hell, it's just a little extra incentive to keep myself healthy, so I look good when I go through ;)
Hell, it's just a little extra incentive to keep myself healthy, so I look good when I go through ;)
You are missing the point. This debate is about freedom and dignity, and not having to cow naked before government agents to simply take a domestic flight.
With these machines, America is less free.
With these machines, America is less free.
What about trans-gender passengers? Will they bar a women with a penis from boarding her flight because she "seems to have a fake explosive penis between her legs". SFO is going to go down with this ;-)
Why not just opt out of TSA all together? Take a car, bus or train, and enjoy getting there. Or better yet for non-Americans, just don't visit the U.S.A. Problem solved.
Just donated $100 to EPIC's http://www.stopdigitalstripsearches.org/ . Especially motivated by tptacek and bugsy's comments. If you find the choice between having your children sexually assaulted or digitally strip searched repugnant, I strongly urge you to donate as well. How can we even say "land of the free, home of the brave" with a straight face anymore?
I am totally against this increase in security because it's unnecessary and gives a security agency the idea that it has undue power over the people. However, I honestly don't understand why so many people are so pissed off at getting touched or seen. I feel like I'm comfortable with my sexuality and the nature of the invasiveness is a nonissue, it's merely the fact that it's escalated _again_.
This article gets my up-vote just for his joke about calling his testicles "The Resistance" ala "The Situation" on Jersey Shore. I needed a good chuckle today.
If I ever encounter a backscatter device, I'll ask for the frisk. Hey, I'm not the one who's gotta grope some stranger's junk.
This will lead to the development of the testicular explosive, which goes off once the device is manhandled.
As good as this article is, the reason I'm most glad I read it is for its link to his other article (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/the-thin...)
In my experience, one of the most illogical things is the difference in security in different countries. Back when I bought a Zippo lighter for the first time I flew from London to Paris. On the way out, I packed the Zippo in my suitcase, and just kept a disposable lighter in my pocket. As they let me keep it, on the way back I kept the Zippo in my pocket and was once again allowed to keep it. The following week, a return flight to Berlin, and on the way back the Germans confiscated the Zippo. It pissed me off, naturally, but just seems stupid - the same flight, with the same two cities at each end, and different rules for what you can take on depending on which direction you're going.
I've also noticed that security officers in America are much more friendly than pretty much any country I've been to in Europe or Asia. I was flying from London last year with a colleague, and while he was being patted down after the scanner beeped at him, I thought to myself that we had a few hours to kill, so decided to make a slightly stupid comment... "Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?" Yeah, that cost us about an hour. Sure, they were probably right to double check after that, but for sure they were, after a short time, just delaying us to piss us off.
Flew out to LA a few weeks ago, and on arrival myself and three colleagues are waiting, having picked up are checked baggage, for the security screening. Three of us, a few places being our fourth in the line, look at each other and say "yeah, he's definitely going to get stopped." Sure enough, he was (he was wearing a black tshirt with a skull and crossbones on, a beanie hat, and carrying a sports holdall that looked, even to us, like it must surely contain drugs.) Being the idiot he is, when they pulled him over for a bag search he immediately said "I'm with them!" and pointed - we were immediately taken to one side, too.
However, the officer searching our bags was incredibly friendly. Asked about what we were doing in LA, but took in to a level beyond the "look for suspiciousness" concept, continuing a 15 minute conversation about various things from what we were doing to video games (related to our time there), what games he liked, etc. Having not found anything really problematic, he did tell me that I had twice the limit of cigarettes I was allowed to bring in to the country (I had 400 with me from the duty-free, for my two weeks out there) - just told me that he was supposed to confiscate and fine me, but would let me off. (This was pretty lucky - I had known the limit but decided to take the risk, given $3/pack duty-free or $12+/pack in NYC.) That kind of friendliness would never be shown (in my experience) by UK staff, or any other country I've visited.
In my experience, one of the most illogical things is the difference in security in different countries. Back when I bought a Zippo lighter for the first time I flew from London to Paris. On the way out, I packed the Zippo in my suitcase, and just kept a disposable lighter in my pocket. As they let me keep it, on the way back I kept the Zippo in my pocket and was once again allowed to keep it. The following week, a return flight to Berlin, and on the way back the Germans confiscated the Zippo. It pissed me off, naturally, but just seems stupid - the same flight, with the same two cities at each end, and different rules for what you can take on depending on which direction you're going.
I've also noticed that security officers in America are much more friendly than pretty much any country I've been to in Europe or Asia. I was flying from London last year with a colleague, and while he was being patted down after the scanner beeped at him, I thought to myself that we had a few hours to kill, so decided to make a slightly stupid comment... "Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?" Yeah, that cost us about an hour. Sure, they were probably right to double check after that, but for sure they were, after a short time, just delaying us to piss us off.
Flew out to LA a few weeks ago, and on arrival myself and three colleagues are waiting, having picked up are checked baggage, for the security screening. Three of us, a few places being our fourth in the line, look at each other and say "yeah, he's definitely going to get stopped." Sure enough, he was (he was wearing a black tshirt with a skull and crossbones on, a beanie hat, and carrying a sports holdall that looked, even to us, like it must surely contain drugs.) Being the idiot he is, when they pulled him over for a bag search he immediately said "I'm with them!" and pointed - we were immediately taken to one side, too.
However, the officer searching our bags was incredibly friendly. Asked about what we were doing in LA, but took in to a level beyond the "look for suspiciousness" concept, continuing a 15 minute conversation about various things from what we were doing to video games (related to our time there), what games he liked, etc. Having not found anything really problematic, he did tell me that I had twice the limit of cigarettes I was allowed to bring in to the country (I had 400 with me from the duty-free, for my two weeks out there) - just told me that he was supposed to confiscate and fine me, but would let me off. (This was pretty lucky - I had known the limit but decided to take the risk, given $3/pack duty-free or $12+/pack in NYC.) That kind of friendliness would never be shown (in my experience) by UK staff, or any other country I've visited.
One anecdote to counter yours: when I came into Glasgow about 6 years ago, I had a few bottles of vodka with me - you're only allowed one. I asked a member of staff about it and he just said don't do it again, and waved me through.
On the other hand, the only place that I've had trouble with my passport (it was kid of dog-eared at the end of its life) was also Glasgow. It depends which security officer you get.
On the other hand, the only place that I've had trouble with my passport (it was kid of dog-eared at the end of its life) was also Glasgow. It depends which security officer you get.
[deleted]
For the problems discussed in this thread, we in the US and in this thread are failing to get a solution due heavily to our forgetting some crucial points.
In a little more detail, we already have plenty of policy precedents to solve this whole problem of airport security, terrorism via airplanes, and terrorism in the US and against the US and to do so without the TSA or the DHS at all.
In particular, there is the issue in this thread of infinite or some finite but large number number of ways a terrorist can attack us so that blocking each way after an instance of that way is unpromising, even in the long run. Well, we can get the infinite or large number down to just a few, maybe just one or zero, right away.
So, with this background, we can get to the policy we need in just two steps:
Step One. For a policy precedent, we can remember the "Bush doctrine" as in
September 11, 2001
Statement by the President in His Address to the Nation
8:30 P.M. EDT
as at
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/200...
"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."
With more there is, also by President George W. Bush,
September 20, 2001
Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People
9:00 P.M. EDT
as at
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/200...
with
"And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
Step Two. We need only to regard an act of terrorism against the US as an act of war against the US. We have plenty of policy precedents about war.
Then the policy we need is simple:
We don't defend against the attacks and, instead, retaliate against them and, thus, deter future attacks.
With appropriate retaliation, we stand to need to retaliate against at most just a few, maybe just one or zero, attacks before all this nonsense of terrorism against the US just stops, at least for some decades.
So, here is how we "retaliate" and, thus, deter: After each attack, we find the countries the terrorists came from, much as in "The Bush Doctrine" say that each such country committed an act of war against the US, declare war against that country, and win the war quickly. As soon as we discover an offending country, we make them "an offer they can't refuse": They pay horrendous reparations, e.g., that more than cover the current annual costs to the US of our present approach to airline security and of the DHS, etc. or we will level their government and most of their economic infrastructure within 24 hours, accepting collateral damage as a necessary part of war. And we are not joking. And, yes, "All cards are on the table.". We still have the SSBNs, ICBMs, B2s, and aircraft carriers, and no Muslim country has anything like any of these or any means at all to defend against them.
We don't attempt to build a democracy in their country, don't occupy their country, and, really, don't even set foot in their country.
We will have to destroy at most only a few sh!tpit countries.
All the other relevant countries will make sure that anyone in their country, citizen or visitor, who even jokes about Jihad, gets a big crowd shouting "Death to America" (sounds like a declaration of war to me), etc. will be effectively re-educated, jailed, or just killed, maybe with their families, villages, etc. Wackozerostan with the Taliban? Level it, nearly all of it. Now. Further problems with Pashtun and Taliban in Pukistan? Same treatment.
There are several pieces of good news for us here:
(A) This terrorism stuff is essentially ONLY Muslim Jihad nonsense. Our policy will have the effect of turning Islam back into just a peaceful religion instead of some international, take over the world, political and military effort. We won't have to have our HUMINT recording and reviewing Mullah speeches because the local government will eagerly, as in we made them "an offer they can't refuse", do that for us.
Just what is it about Islam actually being a "peaceful religion" the Muslim leaders won't be able to understand, e.g., after we level, really, take back to the Stone Age, Wackozerostan?
The story goes that recently Hamid Karzai gave to Pervez Musharraf names, titles, addresses, and phone numbers of the Jihader leaders in Wackozerostan. Of course, Musharraf did nothing. So, we know what, who, and where the Jihader leaders are. So, kill'em.
UBL? There are stories that he is still alive and in Pukistan near the border with China and, also, the main source of funds for the Taliban military efforts. So, find UBL and kill him. "That's what the bullets are for, you twit."
Some Jihaders in India blew up a train. Supposedly some Hindus went to a Muslim neighborhood and devastated it and then leveled about 200 mosques. We could learn a lesson about what such people regard as "effective". Pretty? No. Strong enough? Maybe. So, for the US, one neighborhood and 200 mosques would be 201 GPS coordinates and maybe 201 cruise missiles. Easy enough, but we could do MUCH more.
(B) The Muslim Jihaders have only really crude means of making war, which is NOT a reason for us not to retaliate, effectively.
(C) There only a few countries that want to entertain Muslim Jihaders and, thus, only a few countries we will have to level or deter.
(D) None of the Muslim countries can defend against being leveled by the US within 24 hours.
(E) Our main problem is just that we are too eager to be nice, to mess up our own economy to be nice, and to be reluctant to take the retaliation we are fully able to take.
As of just the last few days, near the top of the list is Yemen. Level it. Good riddance.
It's time to put a stop to this Jihad nonsense. Quickly. Period.
This Jihad terrorism is just war by another means. We in the US know a LOT about war; we're the unchallenged world champions at both offensive and defensive means of war; we are fully able to defend ourselves against the Jihad variety of war also.
What we need to do is just a matter of defending ourselves. I'm sorry about war, but the Jihaders are making war against us; so, we need to defend ourselves.
"Collateral damage"? That's what the Jihaders are doing to us. Collateral damage is part of war, certainly part of theirs, and now has to be part of ours. Otherwise we are back into letting Imams and Mullahs "hijack" a religion and turn it into an international political and military effort, mess up the US economy, kill Americans, and grow the international and military power of Islam. That the Jihaders are making war against us is their fault. If we let them continue without effectively defending ourselves, then that's our fault. We should not continue to let our suffering be our fault.
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
It's time for the US to stop being fooled. Being so nice to them is NOT making them be nice to us. The Imams and Mullahs sending out Jihaders want POWER and are quite willing not to be nice about it.
War is ugly. The only good response to war is to win it, and the usual way is by killing the enemy. Sorry 'bout that, but it's better that we win than lose.
Net, the Imams, Mullahs, and their Jihaders will just continue on with their outrageous nonsense until they are stopped by some sufficiently effective means. Since they have been declaring and making war on us for some years, we need to stop them and to do so better now than later.
If none of the above policy precedents convinces you, then we can return to some of the content of this thread: You will have to have your daughters groped by strangers, photographed in the nude and studied by strangers, and eventually cavity searched by strangers and where there is no effective guarantee of any clinical professionalism or privacy and no effective means of defense or retribution. Yes, the groper might have just gotten HIV on their glove and then given the virus to your daughter. Are you ready to defend the US now?
In a little more detail, we already have plenty of policy precedents to solve this whole problem of airport security, terrorism via airplanes, and terrorism in the US and against the US and to do so without the TSA or the DHS at all.
In particular, there is the issue in this thread of infinite or some finite but large number number of ways a terrorist can attack us so that blocking each way after an instance of that way is unpromising, even in the long run. Well, we can get the infinite or large number down to just a few, maybe just one or zero, right away.
So, with this background, we can get to the policy we need in just two steps:
Step One. For a policy precedent, we can remember the "Bush doctrine" as in
September 11, 2001
Statement by the President in His Address to the Nation
8:30 P.M. EDT
as at
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/200...
"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."
With more there is, also by President George W. Bush,
September 20, 2001
Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People
9:00 P.M. EDT
as at
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/200...
with
"And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
Step Two. We need only to regard an act of terrorism against the US as an act of war against the US. We have plenty of policy precedents about war.
Then the policy we need is simple:
We don't defend against the attacks and, instead, retaliate against them and, thus, deter future attacks.
With appropriate retaliation, we stand to need to retaliate against at most just a few, maybe just one or zero, attacks before all this nonsense of terrorism against the US just stops, at least for some decades.
So, here is how we "retaliate" and, thus, deter: After each attack, we find the countries the terrorists came from, much as in "The Bush Doctrine" say that each such country committed an act of war against the US, declare war against that country, and win the war quickly. As soon as we discover an offending country, we make them "an offer they can't refuse": They pay horrendous reparations, e.g., that more than cover the current annual costs to the US of our present approach to airline security and of the DHS, etc. or we will level their government and most of their economic infrastructure within 24 hours, accepting collateral damage as a necessary part of war. And we are not joking. And, yes, "All cards are on the table.". We still have the SSBNs, ICBMs, B2s, and aircraft carriers, and no Muslim country has anything like any of these or any means at all to defend against them.
We don't attempt to build a democracy in their country, don't occupy their country, and, really, don't even set foot in their country.
We will have to destroy at most only a few sh!tpit countries.
All the other relevant countries will make sure that anyone in their country, citizen or visitor, who even jokes about Jihad, gets a big crowd shouting "Death to America" (sounds like a declaration of war to me), etc. will be effectively re-educated, jailed, or just killed, maybe with their families, villages, etc. Wackozerostan with the Taliban? Level it, nearly all of it. Now. Further problems with Pashtun and Taliban in Pukistan? Same treatment.
There are several pieces of good news for us here:
(A) This terrorism stuff is essentially ONLY Muslim Jihad nonsense. Our policy will have the effect of turning Islam back into just a peaceful religion instead of some international, take over the world, political and military effort. We won't have to have our HUMINT recording and reviewing Mullah speeches because the local government will eagerly, as in we made them "an offer they can't refuse", do that for us.
Just what is it about Islam actually being a "peaceful religion" the Muslim leaders won't be able to understand, e.g., after we level, really, take back to the Stone Age, Wackozerostan?
The story goes that recently Hamid Karzai gave to Pervez Musharraf names, titles, addresses, and phone numbers of the Jihader leaders in Wackozerostan. Of course, Musharraf did nothing. So, we know what, who, and where the Jihader leaders are. So, kill'em.
UBL? There are stories that he is still alive and in Pukistan near the border with China and, also, the main source of funds for the Taliban military efforts. So, find UBL and kill him. "That's what the bullets are for, you twit."
Some Jihaders in India blew up a train. Supposedly some Hindus went to a Muslim neighborhood and devastated it and then leveled about 200 mosques. We could learn a lesson about what such people regard as "effective". Pretty? No. Strong enough? Maybe. So, for the US, one neighborhood and 200 mosques would be 201 GPS coordinates and maybe 201 cruise missiles. Easy enough, but we could do MUCH more.
(B) The Muslim Jihaders have only really crude means of making war, which is NOT a reason for us not to retaliate, effectively.
(C) There only a few countries that want to entertain Muslim Jihaders and, thus, only a few countries we will have to level or deter.
(D) None of the Muslim countries can defend against being leveled by the US within 24 hours.
(E) Our main problem is just that we are too eager to be nice, to mess up our own economy to be nice, and to be reluctant to take the retaliation we are fully able to take.
As of just the last few days, near the top of the list is Yemen. Level it. Good riddance.
It's time to put a stop to this Jihad nonsense. Quickly. Period.
This Jihad terrorism is just war by another means. We in the US know a LOT about war; we're the unchallenged world champions at both offensive and defensive means of war; we are fully able to defend ourselves against the Jihad variety of war also.
What we need to do is just a matter of defending ourselves. I'm sorry about war, but the Jihaders are making war against us; so, we need to defend ourselves.
"Collateral damage"? That's what the Jihaders are doing to us. Collateral damage is part of war, certainly part of theirs, and now has to be part of ours. Otherwise we are back into letting Imams and Mullahs "hijack" a religion and turn it into an international political and military effort, mess up the US economy, kill Americans, and grow the international and military power of Islam. That the Jihaders are making war against us is their fault. If we let them continue without effectively defending ourselves, then that's our fault. We should not continue to let our suffering be our fault.
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
It's time for the US to stop being fooled. Being so nice to them is NOT making them be nice to us. The Imams and Mullahs sending out Jihaders want POWER and are quite willing not to be nice about it.
War is ugly. The only good response to war is to win it, and the usual way is by killing the enemy. Sorry 'bout that, but it's better that we win than lose.
Net, the Imams, Mullahs, and their Jihaders will just continue on with their outrageous nonsense until they are stopped by some sufficiently effective means. Since they have been declaring and making war on us for some years, we need to stop them and to do so better now than later.
If none of the above policy precedents convinces you, then we can return to some of the content of this thread: You will have to have your daughters groped by strangers, photographed in the nude and studied by strangers, and eventually cavity searched by strangers and where there is no effective guarantee of any clinical professionalism or privacy and no effective means of defense or retribution. Yes, the groper might have just gotten HIV on their glove and then given the virus to your daughter. Are you ready to defend the US now?
one doesn't need to be a psychologist to see author's fixation on "something up the ass"
the coiled, closely packed lines at TSA screening sites are the most dangerous places in airports, completely unprotected from a terrorist attack -- a terrorist attack that would serve the same purpose (shutting down air travel) as an attack on board an aircraft.
I really wish people would stop pointing this out. Yes, it's probably true, the TSA screening site is a soft juicy target. Yes, you're very clever for pointing it out. Now pipe down about it before you give someone some ideas.
I really wish people would stop pointing this out. Yes, it's probably true, the TSA screening site is a soft juicy target. Yes, you're very clever for pointing it out. Now pipe down about it before you give someone some ideas.
But that's the point, it's not clever. It's blindingly obvious, virtually impossible to stop, and it hasn't happened. So terrorists are either incredibly stupid or extremely rare. Either case suggests that we are spending way too much in both money and freedom defending against the alleged threat.
I guess we'll have to start screening people before they get in the line, then.
Yes. Very clever. Where else could a terrorist find a crowd?
I just hope the TSA figures it out before someone with a bomb does.
What can they do? There's gonna be a line somewhere. And most airports don't have room to make it straight instead of coiled.
Ultimately what we can't do is to entirely rejig our society to prevent people from being densely packed in any place at any time just in case somebody decides to set off a bomb. The best thing we can do is to keep suicide bombers fixated on hard targets like aeroplanes so they forget about soft targets like... well, whatever.
Ultimately what we can't do is to entirely rejig our society to prevent people from being densely packed in any place at any time just in case somebody decides to set off a bomb. The best thing we can do is to keep suicide bombers fixated on hard targets like aeroplanes so they forget about soft targets like... well, whatever.
How about we just give up on the whole farce altogether? The TSA isn't making airplanes any safer from bombers, period.
Think about it: If they'd had a single success, just one instance where they stopped someone from doing something bad, they'd be screaming it from the rooftops every chance they got. Since they're not, and we haven't heard of anything more malicious than grandmothers with nailclippers, I think its safe to say that the TSA hasn't done a damn thing.
Think about it: If they'd had a single success, just one instance where they stopped someone from doing something bad, they'd be screaming it from the rooftops every chance they got. Since they're not, and we haven't heard of anything more malicious than grandmothers with nailclippers, I think its safe to say that the TSA hasn't done a damn thing.
Actually there are a lot of technological and policy solutions to "big line at security screening, potential bombing target itself"; in environments where the attackers were still idiots but actually existed (unlike US airports), these solutions were implemented.
Why not - terrorists are stupid people, they will get caught like the rest, but it can't be used to increase the security theater.
What scares me is the faceless machine nobody cares about silently collecting naked pictures of every citizen, managed by people nobody will ever see who can never be held accountable for anything. You can't simply flip a switch and capture high fidelity copies of a pat-down search. You can with the machines.
Incidentally: contrary to popular opinion, security agents, law enforcement, border control, &c all very much do care when complaints are filed on them. Their M.O. is that nobody takes the time to file those complaints. They're counting on people not bothering with the pat-down because the machine seems more convenient, and they're counting on not dealing with a flood of complaints. I plan on filing a complaint at the first hint of an off-color comment about what they're doing. "Better get new gloves, Fred!" --- "I'd like your name and your supervisor's name, now."