Forum: Internet Links Topic: The end of privacy started by: GORDON Posted by GORDON on Feb. 02 2010,07:21
Full body scans now mandatory if flying out of Heathrow.< http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8490860.stm > Add to this Obama's spending millions on scanners at US airports, and we should no longer expect to have any privacy if you want to fly. Nice trend we have going, here. I'm calling it now: airports are only the beginning. Ultimately, if this trend continues, you won't be allowed to leave your house without a full body scan. Edit - headline was misleading. But I am still making the call. We'll all be scanned constantly in the nearish future. I'm guessing within 25 years. Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 02 2010,07:51
Ugh.
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 02 2010,09:06
If we're going to start being scanned all the time, which essentially shows us naked, then I for one will just go ahead and stop wearing clothing in public.This is fair warning. Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 02 2010,11:22
QUOTE Transport Secretary Lord Adonis said in the immediate future only a small proportion of airline passengers would be selected for scanning. Lord Adonis? Really? I also like how he says "immediate future." Guess this pretty much means I won't be visiting the U.K. anytime soon. Posted by unkbill on Feb. 03 2010,16:34
The new scanners pretty much show a form like gumby and what he has on him. As for privacy. You are just now thinking we have lost it? Been long gone.
Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 03 2010,17:03
< Just run them through Photoshop (prolly NWS) >
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 03 2010,17:03
Yes but until now they couldn't see you naked.I'm not buying the "you look like gumby" argument. This is the first generation stuff. Posted by unkbill on Feb. 03 2010,18:09
(GORDON @ Feb. 03 2010,17:03) QUOTE Yes but until now they couldn't see you naked. I'm not buying the "you look like gumby" argument. This is the first generation stuff. Well it isn't an argument. They can come with a stick figure and only show up things like guns and watches. Been there saw that. Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 03 2010,18:41
I know for a fact that dogs & rats are used to sniff out landmines in third-world countries. There's also research into using honeybees (which actually have a higher accuracy far as I've read). Granted they're training them to find a particular chemical, but they're fucking rats. You can breed them en masse. Even the dog solution seems cheaper & more preferable than the million-dollar scanner machine solution.
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 03 2010,20:31
(TheCatt @ Feb. 03 2010,19:03) QUOTE < Just run them through Photoshop (prolly NWS) > That's faked. Someone took the sixth image from the top row of this ( NSFW: < http://www.f1online.de/f1onlin....guage=1 > ) added a belt buckle, inverted it, and then called it the scanner image. It's not. Not that I approve of these scanners, just saying it's not quite like that. For one thing, she wouldn't have hair. Posted by GORDON on Feb. 10 2010,06:13
Body scanned images of a celeb passed around at a UK airport.< http://www.prisonplanet.com/exposed....ml?DFSA > QUOTE “It is very important to stress that the images which are captured by body scanners are immediately deleted after the passenger has gone through the body scanner,” Adonis told the London Evening Standard.
Adonis was forced to address privacy concerns following reports that the images produced by the scanners broke child pornography laws in the UK. When the scanners were first introduced, it was also speculated that images of famous people would be ripe for abuse as the pictures produced by the devices make genitals “eerily visible” according to journalists who have investigated trials of the technology. However, the Transport Secretary’s assurances were demolished after it was revealed on the BBC’s Jonathan Ross show Friday that Indian actor Shahrukh Khan had passed through a body scan and later had the image of his naked body printed out and circulated by Heathrow security staff. Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 10 2010,06:23
I read about his side of that yesterday, and was like, wtf? They keep saying that's not possible.Seriously, wtf? Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 10 2010,06:26
The first time I'm directed towards one of these machines, my response will be (in a loud voice), "Why, do you want to see my COCK? Is that it? Not getting enouch COCK in your life? How about I just whip it out right here for you, if you're so hungry for my COCK?"Sure, I won't actually reach my destination, but it'll be fun. Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 10 2010,06:28
(TheCatt @ Feb. 10 2010,08:23) QUOTE They keep saying that's not possible. It's because they, being government officials, are completely full of shit. And hungry for my COCK. Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 10 2010,10:09
QUOTE In the meantime, the revelation that the naked body scanner images are being freely printed out and circulated by airport security staff should prove to be the death knell for plans on behalf of governments worldwide to institute the scanners on a widespread basis. I doubt it. Posted by DoctorChaos on Feb. 11 2010,04:10
QUOTE Adonis was forced to address privacy concerns following reports that the images produced by the scanners broke child pornography laws in the UK. Sickos. QUOTE “I was a little scared. Something happens [inside the scans], and I came out. Then I saw these girls – they had these printouts. I looked at them. I thought they were some forms you had to fill. I said ‘give them to me’ – and you could see everything inside. So I autographed them for them,” stated Khan. In spite of the fact he's being treated like a piece of meat, he handles this with a lot of grace. Good on him. Posted by Leisher on Feb. 11 2010,06:16
Instead of the scanners, they should just create a box that runs a laser over the person inside like you'd see in a Sci-Fi movie. If they want it to detect certain chemicals or any active electronic devices, I guess that's fine too, but that's not the point. Start releasing rumors 2 years before rolling out the first device. Say that you've created a new scanner that causes any explosive material to detonate. It doesn't matter if they're solid, liquid, or gas. This scanner detects them and detonates them. Tell the world work has begun on a prototype that will contain the blast. A year later, leak security camera footage of an unknown airport screening station where a man goes into the prototype device and an explosion occurs within the device. Hire the best Hollywood has to offer for the special effects here. He doesn't have to be seen exploding, but those folks on camera must react properly. Then show someone with a hose spray out the machine, and within a minute, the next person enters the same machine. Now roll the device out and instead of spending millions on each device, spend a couple thousand on properly training your security employees to stop nervous people. Terrorists are ignorant. That's why they're so willing to die for nothing. They'll have no idea if this new technology works or not. Even if they have scientists of their own telling them that this device is BS, the actual terrorist himself is still a fucking idiot and will be nervous. No invasion of privacy. No huge costs. Posted by GORDON on Feb. 11 2010,06:44
What would we think about those airport scanners in "Total Recall," that show only skeletons and hidden weapons?
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 11 2010,10:10
< Apparently illegal to carry English-Arabic flashcards >.
Posted by Leisher on Feb. 11 2010,10:17
(GORDON @ Feb. 11 2010,09:44) QUOTE What would we think about those airport scanners in "Total Recall," that show only skeletons and hidden weapons? And True Lies... "Good morning Janice." Posted by GORDON on Feb. 11 2010,10:39
Oh yeah.I guess Arnold is a fan of those. BTW, I would like to see Leisher's plan put into effect.... though you know who the biggest opponents would be? Liberals. Which would actually be free advertising for the system... Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 11 2010,11:45
Long as it's cheaper than a few hundred or thousand scanners.
Posted by Troy on Feb. 11 2010,14:43
(GORDON @ Feb. 11 2010,10:39) QUOTE Oh yeah. I guess Arnold is a fan of those. BTW, I would like to see Leisher's plan put into effect.... though you know who the biggest opponents would be? Liberals. Which would actually be free advertising for the system... Sometimes, I wish you would make up your mind as to which party cares more about your personal freedoms. It's always the other side when it's convenient for you to bitch about. I swear it was those evil liberal socialists a a few threads ago trying to take them away. Posted by GORDON on Feb. 11 2010,17:41
What?
Posted by thibodeaux on Feb. 11 2010,17:50
(Troy @ Feb. 11 2010,17:43) QUOTE Sometimes, I wish you would make up your mind as to which party cares more about your personal freedoms. That's easy: none of them. Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 12 2010,06:18
Is there any law against taping small pieces of wire in the shape of letters and taping it to your chest before getting dressed to go onto a plane? Maybe something saying "Fuck the TSA", for example.
Posted by Leisher on Feb. 12 2010,06:44
No, but I'm sure they'd come up with some excuse to detain you long enough to miss your flight, and then they'd blacklist you.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 12 2010,07:02
(thibodeaux @ Feb. 11 2010,20:50) QUOTE (Troy @ Feb. 11 2010,17:43) QUOTE Sometimes, I wish you would make up your mind as to which party cares more about your personal freedoms. That's easy: none of them. Is that what that mini-tirade was all about? Absolutely none of them. No one in government can be trusted anymore. No one. Fact remains, if Leisher's fake "terrorist blown up at checkpoint" video was released, it would be the liberals having a shit fit because a guy carrying explosives was detonated before he could be given due process. Am I wrong? Posted by GORDON on Feb. 12 2010,07:04
(Leisher @ Feb. 12 2010,09:44) QUOTE No, but I'm sure they'd come up with some excuse to detain you long enough to miss your flight, and then they'd blacklist you. I remember a long time ago peeps getting pulled off planes because they had some sort of "Fuck the TSA" sign in their luggage to be found when it was searched. The luggage searchers, when not stealing things out of the bags, didn't like a plane passenger having an anti-TSA opinion, so they detained him. Posted by GORDON on Aug. 25 2010,14:11
(GORDON @ Feb. 02 2010,10:21) QUOTE I'm calling it now: airports are only the beginning. Ultimately, if this trend continues, you won't be allowed to leave your house without a full body scan. I FUCKING TOLD YOU. < http://blogs.forbes.com/andygre....ng-vans > Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 25 2010,14:20
You've got a ways to go before "not allowed" is fulfilled.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 25 2010,14:23
Why is there always someone defending this shit...
Posted by Leisher on Aug. 26 2010,05:39
If they're only using it in cases where some sort of crime is suspected, fine. Probable cause and all that.However, if they're just randomly scanning, how is that not an illegal search? Posted by GORDON on Aug. 26 2010,06:32
Invent a foil-lined clothing line. Make billions.
Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 26 2010,06:36
QUOTE how is that not an illegal search? It is, IMO. Completely unconstitutional. I'm sure they'll try to make some argument about how they are allowed to visually look at things like the car itself sitting on the street, and this is just the same thing with a different wavelength of light. It's bullshit, though. Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 26 2010,06:37
(GORDON @ Aug. 26 2010,08:32) QUOTE Invent a foil-lined clothing line. Make billions. It'll match my hat. Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 15 2010,18:05
< Dont touch my junk. >TSA now molests passengers. Posted by GORDON on Nov. 15 2010,18:29
Saw that video on 2 network news stations, today. Hopefully it'll make something happen.Loved the "The only reason it isn't sexual assault is because you're the government" line. Posted by GORDON on Nov. 15 2010,18:35
Is there any way a "private charter" company could open its doors selling a product that doesn't require TSA involvement at a slightly increased price?
Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 15 2010,18:49
I doubt it. But I'm so sick of the TSA now, that I never want to fly again.
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 15 2010,19:27
I've hated security measures since I was 24, and got out of the Marines, in a FUCK YOU sense for assuming I might be trying to smuggle X onto this plane.My hatred became much worse when I had health issues and the mere act of taking off my shoes for security was embarrassingly difficult for me. I am just barely able to tolerate security the way it was... not sure if I could handle the pat down. And I know one thing for sure... I could never, ever subject my son to it. He won't be flying. Well done, TSA. Posted by thibodeaux on Nov. 16 2010,05:00
Now, I'm not really keeping up with things lately, but is it really now true that EVERY passenger has to choose between backscatter scanner and pat-down?If so, that's so retarded it defies imagination. Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 16 2010,06:48
(thibodeaux @ Nov. 16 2010,08:00) QUOTE Now, I'm not really keeping up with things lately, but is it really now true that EVERY passenger has to choose between backscatter scanner and pat-down? If so, that's so retarded it defies imagination. Where those machines are installed, yes. Posted by thibodeaux on Nov. 16 2010,06:52
Retarded.
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 16 2010,07:10
The story was all over the morning news this morning, too. It's got legs.I hate that TSA bitch they keep showing how it is 'imperative they keep unauthorized liquids and powders off of planes.' Just the way she says it makes me want to punch her in the face. I'd like to remind everyone that the TSA has never caught a terrorist or a bomb. I'd make a link to their annual budget that they spend not catching terrorist or bombs, but the national budget isn't posted on the internet for some reason. Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 16 2010,07:22
< $7 billion/year >
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 16 2010,08:52
< http://www.usatoday.com/travel....T_N.htm >QUOTE At Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Napolitano reiterated points she made in a column published Monday in USA TODAY — that the imaging technology does not violate fliers' privacy. She says it doesn't violate privacy, yet the American people keep saying it does. I still want to punch her in the face. She's the government so I guess she is right. Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 16 2010,08:55
Avoided having to fly for the November holiday this year. I'm fairly certain such Draconian measures don't exist at my local airport yet. But when they do, I'm done.But the best quote comes from the dude who used to head up security at NWA & now runs a private aviation security consulting firm or something... QUOTE He blames the TSA for doing a poor job of explaining the new searches to the public. "The dilemma they are in is if they explain too much, they risk scaring the public," he added. "I think it's a small liberty to give up for the safety of all." Do I really need to bring up that Ben Franklin quote to make my counterpoint? Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 16 2010,08:58
< Details. >QUOTE [A]nyone who refuses to complete the screening process will be denied access to airport secure areas and could be subject to civil penalties, the administration said, citing a federal appeals court ruling in support of the rule. The ruling, from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, says that "requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world. Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by 'electing not to fly' on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found. SERIOUSLY? Aren't they the most liberal circuit? Posted by GORDON on Nov. 16 2010,08:59
I wonder if you can protest outside the doors of an airport.
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 16 2010,09:03
QUOTE Some travelers say that they are also seeing the amount of time spent in security lines increase. Napolitano added, "The American people enjoy waiting in the longer lines. It is an added bonus of this non-invasive security process." Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 16 2010,09:10
(GORDON @ Nov. 16 2010,12:03) QUOTE QUOTE Some travelers say that they are also seeing the amount of time spent in security lines increase. Napolitano added, "The American people enjoy waiting in the longer lines. It is an added bonus of this non-invasive security process." "Some travelers are lonely, or lacking in companionship, so we're grateful to let them feel the caress of another living human being. Honestly, I don't know why they don't tip us, too." Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 16 2010,09:40
(TheCatt @ Nov. 16 2010,10:58) QUOTE ...requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world. The war on chemistry continues. Can we convince some low-level congressman to sneak hazardous substances into the next session so all of them have to submit to anal cavity searches every time they walk in the building? Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 16 2010,10:24
QUOTE I bet she flies 2-3 times a week now that she finally got her way. It's the only way she can get a guy to touch her. Gizmodo commenter. Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 16 2010,10:47
< http://wewontfly.com/opt-out-day/ >November 24th - the busiest flying day of the year - has been chosen as opt out day. If everyone does it, it will be quite a delicious mess. If it does go down that way, any bets on how long before the folks behind this idea are investigated by the FBI? Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 16 2010,10:50
(TPRJones @ Nov. 16 2010,12:47) QUOTE If it does go down that way, any bets on how long before the folks behind this idea are investigated by the FBI? That would greatly encourage me not to fly altogether, regardless of the security procedures at my local airport. They may as well up the ante and block runways. Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 16 2010,10:52
If they want to hand-screen me, I can at least request an opposite sex screener, right?
Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 16 2010,10:55
Claim to be gay, and yes, you can have a woman feel you up.
Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 16 2010,11:01
(TPRJones @ Nov. 16 2010,13:55) QUOTE Claim to be gay, and yes, you can have a woman feel you up. "Is that your wife behind you?" "Uh, it's a loveless marriage." "Um, and your kids?" "They were left at our doorstep, what else are we supposed to do?" but wiat, seriously? Cuz dude's don't touch me. Posted by GORDON on Nov. 16 2010,11:12
Argument for it I keep reading over and over is "Well you let your doctor touch you, this is just like that because it is their job."What a stupid fucking argument. If the TSA has an MD on hand at the security checkpoint, he/she can screen me. But not the bitch doctor who gave me my last prostate exam. She was brutal. Posted by Leisher on Nov. 16 2010,11:15
I wonder what would happen if after you got padded down you turned to the guy who did it and said something like:"Can I ask you a question? Who grows up with the dream of having a job where they get to play with other men's junk all day?" When he gets mad call him a homophobe. Posted by GORDON on Nov. 16 2010,11:20
I was wondering what would happen if, when getting the pat down, you LOUDLY exclaim, "Hey, stop touching my penis!"Better yet: have your kids yell it. Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 16 2010,12:31
I'm currently refusing to fly because I wouldn't be able to resist doing something to piss them off probably more than I should. Things I've considered:1) loudly faking orgasm upon contact with my junk 2) stripping completely naked in the middle of the checkpoint screaming "if you want to see it here it is you son of a bitch" 3) teabagging the TSA agent when he crouches down in front of me Posted by GORDON on Nov. 16 2010,12:36
I got lippy last time I flew out of LAX when they got lippy with me. Dangerous, but I just couldn't help it. I get angry just getting in the line. My anger was worse that time because that was the first time I had to take off my belt. Christ.
Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 16 2010,13:54
Seriously? The times I've worn belts (I honestly try to fly in short and a t-shirt to avoid having to take anything off), I've always taken them off.
Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 16 2010,14:16
(GORDON @ Nov. 16 2010,13:12) QUOTE Argument for it I keep reading over and over is "Well you let your doctor touch you, this is just like that because it is their job." They also presumably suffered through years of medical schooling. I'm halfway convinced most TSA employees would fuck up spelling their names. And I only see the doctor a few times a year. & it's pretty much ONE doctor, not a legion of incompetent rent-a-cop security rejects who couldn't make the cut for meter maid or traffic cop. Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 16 2010,14:19
(TheCatt @ Nov. 16 2010,15:54) QUOTE Seriously? The times I've worn belts (I honestly try to fly in short and a t-shirt to avoid having to take anything off), I've always taken them off. Always got to take off the belt and shoes up here. & unpack (then repack) my laptop, toothpaste, contact cleaning solution, etc. Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 16 2010,14:21
(TPRJones @ Nov. 16 2010,14:31) QUOTE I'm currently refusing to fly because I wouldn't be able to resist doing something to piss them off probably more than I should. Things I've considered: 1) loudly faking orgasm upon contact with my junk 2) stripping completely naked in the middle of the checkpoint screaming "if you want to see it here it is you son of a bitch" 3) teabagging the TSA agent when he crouches down in front of me 4) "By the way, my venereal diseases have really been acting up lately, so there's probably a few kinds of discharge that might have soaked through my pants fabric, but go right ahead." Posted by GORDON on Nov. 16 2010,14:42
(TheCatt @ Nov. 16 2010,16:54) QUOTE Seriously? The times I've worn belts (I honestly try to fly in short and a t-shirt to avoid having to take anything off), I've always taken them off. Through the 90's it was just the metal detector, and maybe the wand if you beep. At some point after 9/11 it became the shoes. The first time I had to take my belt off was late 2008. Your mileage may vary, but that was my first time. Posted by GORDON on Nov. 16 2010,15:41
Hands down pants? Is this a joke?< http://www.prisonplanet.com/tsa-now....ts.html > Posted by GORDON on Nov. 16 2010,16:00
"Three Year Old Accosted by TSA"< http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfmoms/detail?entry_id=77140 > Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 16 2010,17:27
I hope Janet dies.
Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 16 2010,19:23
Recently saw on the news...Apparently, airports can opt out of using TSA personnel & hire out to private security firms. Less than 20 do so. The MSP airport is considering becoming one of them. I'm cautiously optimistic. Posted by thibodeaux on Nov. 17 2010,11:39
< http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2010....mpanies >QUOTE an airport may submit to the Under Secretary an application to have the screening of passengers and property at the airport under section 44901 to be carried out by the screening personnel of a qualified private screening company My emphasis. I'm sure they'll approve all the apps, too. Real quick-like. Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 17 2010,12:35
< Democracts back stripsearches. >QUOTE "Mr. Pistole, you're doing a great job," Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat and chairman of the Senate committee overseeing air travel, told TSA chief John Pistole, a former FBI agent who's had the job since July. For emphasis, Rockefeller added a few minutes later: "I think you're doing a terrific job."
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat, admitted right away that "I have been a fan of the advanced imaging technology." American air travelers, she said, "have to understand that this is being done for their best interests and their safety." Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat, suggested that the public outcry was a problem of education: if Americans learned more about the TSA's new procedures, they wouldn't object to the new searches. Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 17 2010,12:56
Someone needs to post that shit on Daily KOS. Where's your messiah now, assholes?
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 17 2010,13:29
QUOTE Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat, suggested that the public outcry was a problem of education: if Americans learned more about the TSA's new procedures, they wouldn't object to the new searches. Why lately does this shit always come down to "If the people weren't so stupid they'd be fine with it; I guess we just need to use smaller words?" Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 17 2010,13:44
(GORDON @ Nov. 17 2010,15:29) QUOTE QUOTE Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat, suggested that the public outcry was a problem of education: if Americans learned more about the TSA's new procedures, they wouldn't object to the new searches. Why lately does this shit always come down to "If the people weren't so stupid they'd be fine with it; I guess we just need to use smaller words?" All the Congressional folk get their own private jet-type things to fly on, don't they? Do they even fucking remember what it's like to travel via normal shitty passenger airliners? Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 17 2010,14:54
I don't know. I was flying out of RDU 1.5 years ago, and David Price was flying at the same time, and going through security with me.He go held up cuz the TSA didn't recognize his special Congressional ID. Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 17 2010,14:59
Good.As a general rule of thumb, all government personnel (with the exception of front-line military troops or emergency personnel responding to a crisis) should be required to deal with the lowest level of shit they put their citizenry through. And I'm including the President in this. I want to see how Obama feels about the TSA after scans of Sasha and Malia get leaked to the internet. Probably not so good. Posted by GORDON on Nov. 17 2010,15:16
I still want to know how it is legal to be able to put down the cash in order to use he TSA fast lane.
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 18 2010,06:37
TSA wants to unionize, in spite of the fact it is against the law to do so.< http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/24670 > Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 18 2010,08:48
(GORDON @ Nov. 18 2010,08:37) QUOTE TSA wants to unionize, in spite of the fact it is against the law to do so. < http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/24670 > A perfect storm of incompetency. Posted by GORDON on Nov. 18 2010,09:13
I bet they unionize and the government wont care.
Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 18 2010,10:39
< Opting out doesn't really matter. >QUOTE The TSA points out that even if an airport decides to use a private firm for security, the screeners still must follow TSA guidelines. That would include using enhanced pat-downs and the full-body scanners if they are installed at the airport.
Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 18 2010,11:26
Who sits there & verifies that all the private folk follow the TSA guidelines?
Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 18 2010,12:20
< Millions invaded, 130 items found. >QUOTE "This year alone, the use of advanced imaging technology has led to the detection of over 130 prohibited, illegal or dangerous items," TSA spokesman Greg Soule told FoxNews.com. The TSA would not disclose exactly what those items were, but it said they included weapons like ceramic knives and various drugs -- including a syringe filled with heroine hidden in a passenger’s underwear. Read more: < http://www.foxnews.com/us....] > Posted by thibodeaux on Nov. 18 2010,12:53
It's always about drugs, isn't it?
Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 18 2010,13:45
(TheCatt @ Nov. 18 2010,14:20) QUOTE ...including a syringe filled with heroine hidden in a passenger’s underwear. Explain how a passenger with a single hit of heroin is a threat to aviation security, especially when you assholes are supposed to be fondling people in the name of looking for chemicals that explode. Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 18 2010,14:01
But they could have used it to get the pilot addicted to illegal drugs then hijacked the plan by refusing to give him another hit unless he did what they said!
Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 19 2010,07:03
< TSA considering less human-body representative imaging. >QUOTE The TSA is testing new X-ray technology that will show a "stick figure" instead of a passenger's full-body image. Viewers on the other end of the X-ray would see anomalies -- anything from a suicide vest to a cell phone on a belt clip -- highlighted on the anatomically-ambiguous figure.
No images were available to illustrate what the new scan would look like. Posted by thibodeaux on Nov. 19 2010,09:04
< Just in case you had any doubts about TSA's stupidity >
Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 19 2010,13:13
< Incoming Republicans want change. >QUOTE The incoming leaders of the House Transportation Committee on Friday called the new airport pat-down procedures "overly intrusive" and demanded that the Transportation Security Administration restrict their use. In a letter to the TSA, Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., and Rep. Thomas Petri, R-Wis., who are set to assume leadership of aviation issues in Congress next year when Republicans take control, said only the highest risk passengers should be subjected to the more aggressive pat-downs. It is the harshest reaction to date on the new searches from key leaders in Congress. "The entire focus of TSA's efforts to improve aviation security needs to be revisited," Mica and Petri wrote in the letter. They accused TSA of reacting to old threats — in this case, the so-called "underwear bomber" who attempted to blow up a jet last Christmas — while failing to be "proactive." Mica is expected to become chairman of the full Transportation Committee, and Petri is in line to lead the Aviation Subcommittee. "Really now, who thinks the public will put up with the kind of behavior that would get you arrested if you weren't working for the government?" Petri said. "Do we really expect Grandma to go through this?" FINALLY Posted by thibodeaux on Nov. 19 2010,16:25
Yes, curse the Democrats for foisting these useless government drones, the TSA and DHS, upon us. If only the Republicans had been in charge when these organizations were created....
Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 19 2010,20:35
Zing.QUOTE And I can take over the plane with nail clippers? Double zing.
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 20 2010,05:43
I think as a Marine in that situation I would be tempted to tell the TSA agent to get the fuck out of my face.
Posted by unkbill on Nov. 20 2010,06:37
I had no problem with anything that was done to me on my trip home. Was patted down twice. Had my bottle of water confiscated in Korea. Didn't think anything of it till a dozen people walked onto the plane with Starbucks coffee. Guess that isn't considered a liguid.In Jakarta my wife made the comment she wondered about women. She noticed no women working and what would happen if a women needs patted down. Some of there people preach you never touch a female unless she is related. Of course there foreign minister made a big deal about "I'm not shaking Michele Obamas hand because she isn't related." Well someone had a cell phone video and posted it on youtube. He claimed she reached out and grabbed his hand. Most people after watching the video called him a hypocrite. Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 20 2010,13:57
< Airports using the body scanners. >
Posted by thibodeaux on Nov. 21 2010,06:42
< Some good news >.QUOTE "Molester, pervert, disgusting, an embarrassment, creep. These are all words I have heard today at work describing me, said in my presence as I patted passengers down. These comments are painful and demoralizing, one day is bad enough, but I have to come back tomorrow, the next day and the day after that to keep hearing these comments. If something doesn’t change in the next two weeks I don’t know how much longer I can withstand this taunting. I go home and I cry. I am serving my country, I should not have to go home and cry after a day of honorably serving my country." One correction: you are NOT serving your country, much less honorably. Maybe you should quit? Posted by GORDON on Nov. 21 2010,08:24
I bet making comments to your designated groper becomes criminalized.
Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 21 2010,11:02
Please quit. Everyone. Or TAKE A STAND and say HELL NO I WONT DO THIS Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 21 2010,12:17
(TheCatt @ Nov. 20 2010,15:57) QUOTE < Airports using the body scanners. > I still think the MSP airport only has those scanner for int'l passengers. I noticed nothing last time I was there. I will certainly check into that & fucking Lambert before my next flight, though. Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 21 2010,12:21
(thibodeaux @ Nov. 21 2010,08:42) QUOTE < Some good news >. QUOTE "Molester, pervert, disgusting, an embarrassment, creep. These are all words I have heard today at work describing me, said in my presence as I patted passengers down. These comments are painful and demoralizing, one day is bad enough, but I have to come back tomorrow, the next day and the day after that to keep hearing these comments. If something doesn’t change in the next two weeks I don’t know how much longer I can withstand this taunting. I go home and I cry. I am serving my country, I should not have to go home and cry after a day of honorably serving my country." One correction: you are NOT serving your country, much less honorably. Maybe you should quit? QUOTE Reader Lance point us to (an admittedly hearsay) story of a pilot traveling with his 18-year old daughter. As they approached the naked image scanner, the pilot overheard a TSA agent say into his radio: "heads up, got a cutie for you." "...won't someone please think of the children?" QUOTE I bet making comments to your designated groper becomes criminalized. It's already a felony not to follow their exact orders. How much more fucking authority do you need? Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 21 2010,18:17
![]() Posted by GORDON on Nov. 21 2010,18:34
QUOTE TSA Chief: also complained of "horror stories" about the enhanced pat-down that he said are "frankly inaccurate, either misinformation or whatever." < http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/21/tsa.pat.downs/index.html?hpt=C1 > Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 21 2010,20:12
QUOTE At the same time, Pistole acknowledged that travelers received little warning of the enhanced screening procedures, and therefore those who faced the more thorough pat-down were likely caught by surprise. "That's my responsibility, because I did not advertise this, if you will, and say we are going to do this new type of pat-down, because I did not want to provide a blueprint or a road map to the terrorists to say, 'here's our new security procedure, so here's all you have to do to,' " Pistole said. Security by obscurity, boys and girls. The sign of a fucking hack with no better plan. There are countries that would execute public servants for this level of stupidity. Posted by thibodeaux on Nov. 22 2010,05:47
His name is "Pistol?" I'm surprised they haven't banned him from flying.< Cuz, you know, it's a gun >. Posted by thibodeaux on Nov. 22 2010,05:48
(Malcolm @ Nov. 21 2010,23:12) QUOTE QUOTE At the same time, Pistole acknowledged that travelers received little warning of the enhanced screening procedures, and therefore those who faced the more thorough pat-down were likely caught by surprise. "That's my responsibility, because I did not advertise this, if you will, and say we are going to do this new type of pat-down, because I did not want to provide a blueprint or a road map to the terrorists to say, 'here's our new security procedure, so here's all you have to do to,' " Pistole said. Security by obscurity, boys and girls. The sign of a fucking hack with no better plan. There are countries that would execute public servants for this level of stupidity. Actually, it's yet another way of saying, "If you rubes just understood us, you'd see that we're doing what's best for you." Posted by thibodeaux on Nov. 22 2010,05:56
Ok, now wait a minute. I'm confused by < this >:QUOTE When Tyner refused to the body scan and opted instead for the pat-down, he was told that the TSA agent would have to do a "groin check". Tyner was not going to have that happen. So before he knew it a quick sucession of events took place. Various supervisors got involved, Tyner was pulled aside, the police came by, and a supervisor told Tyner that he wouldn't be allowed to travel unless he submitted to the check. Tyner opted to leave instead - getting a full refund for the unused ticket - but not before he was told that if he left the secured area he would be "subject to a civil suit and a $10,000 fine." Tyner left nonetheless. That's the "don't touch my junk" guy. So, it sounds like the alternatives are: 1) get scanned, 2) get groped, 3) leave and pay $10k. WTF? Posted by GORDON on Nov. 22 2010,06:19
Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 22 2010,08:36
At this point, just drugging everyone may be easier.
Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 22 2010,09:48
A civil suit? For fucking what?
Posted by Leisher on Nov. 22 2010,12:57
QUOTE At this point, just drugging everyone may be easier. Ever see The Fifth Element? Each person has their own tube they lay in and then they're gassed to unconsciousness and get woken up when they arrive. Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 22 2010,13:02
(Leisher @ Nov. 22 2010,14:57) QUOTE QUOTE At this point, just drugging everyone may be easier. Ever see The Fifth Element? Each person has their own tube they lay in and then they're gassed to unconsciousness and get woken up when they arrive. A fine idea until you're tasked with the idea of coming up with the universal sedation playbook, taking into account all possible allergies, previously ingested antidotes (to counter the sedation), dosage, duration of effect, etc. The details are just bitchy. Posted by thibodeaux on Nov. 22 2010,13:15
< Don't you people know what a Nazi is? >QUOTE One can’t describe me as a Nazi because I am following a security procedure of designed to find prohibited items on a passenger’s body. A Nazi is someone with hatred and ignorance in their hearts, a person who carried out actions of execution and extermination of those based on their religion, origins or sexual preferences. I work to make travel safer, even if I do not agree with the current security procedures. Further more, I am Jewish and a TSA Transportation Security Officer, an American Patriot and to call me a Nazi is an offense beyond all other offenses. A "Nazi," literally, is a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. I doubt if "hatred and ignorance in the heart" was a requirement. Nor, technically, is a devotion to just following orders...I mean "procedures". And if you're working to make travel safer, but you don't agree with your procedures...what's more important? That travel is safer, or that you follow the procedure? Hm. Maybe if all you patriots in the TSA would just, I don't know, REFUSE to do this stuff, maybe the "procedure" would get changed? Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 22 2010,14:13
Uh, wait a minute...QUOTE I work to make travel safer, even if I do not agree with the current security procedures. If you don't agree with the current procedures and you work to make travel safer, does that mean? A) You disagree with the current procedures because they don't make travel safer? or B) The current procedures do make travel safer & you're just lazy/incompetent. If the current procedures don't work, then what exactly do you do that makes travel safer? Procedures ... not prescribed by the current management? Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 22 2010,14:36
(Leisher @ Nov. 22 2010,15:57) QUOTE QUOTE At this point, just drugging everyone may be easier. Ever see The Fifth Element? Each person has their own tube they lay in and then they're gassed to unconsciousness and get woken up when they arrive. There was a Stephen King short story for inter-planterary (or similar) travel where they were put to sleep for travel as well. Although, that was because if you didn't, you'd go insane. Posted by GORDON on Nov. 22 2010,14:37
The Jaunt."It's forever in there." Posted by GORDON on Nov. 22 2010,14:53
< http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/40318901/ns/travel-news/ >Well maybe TSA agents need to be armed to protect themselves. QUOTE “This absence of information has resulted in a backlash against the character and professionalism of TSOs,” said Gage in a statement. “TSA must act now — before the Thanksgiving rush — to ensure that TSOs are not being left to fend for themselves.” Seems to always come down to the public being too stupid to know when the government is right. Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 22 2010,22:12
QUOTE “Our concern is that the public not confuse the people implementing the policies with the people who developed the policies,” said Sharon Pinnock, the union's director of membership and organization. Whenever we bring up the issue of enforcement of insane laws by cops, the argument gets made that we oughtn't get mad at the cops for doing their jobs & we ought to get pissed at the legislators for making stupid laws. Anyone want to defend the TSA with similar logic? Posted by GORDON on Nov. 23 2010,05:16
I have seen a lot of responses to that argument as "Nuremberg."Been seeing on news channels this morning Napalatino (?) on camera urging people to not opt-out of the scanners, and to just comply with the rules. She doesn't get it. I don't think any of them get it. I don't think it would take much to instigate a brawl at a checkout line. A combination of the right pissed off traveler, the right people in the queue, and the right angry TSA agent who wont back down. If I had to put money on it, I'd say it would happen in Detroit. TSA agents there are VERY surly. After that is when the TSA gropers will be armed. Also, it will become illegal to take video of the security process, for safety reasons. Anyone posting things on youtube will be arrested by the FBI. Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 23 2010,07:44
(GORDON @ Nov. 23 2010,07:16) QUOTE If I had to put money on it, I'd say it would happen in Detroit. I call LA or somewhere in Cali. Posted by GORDON on Nov. 23 2010,09:47
Question: we have a right to travel, but do we have a right to fly? Been seeing people use that argument all by itself as to why the TSA can do whatever they want.But I can't think of why using an airline isn't a "right." Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 23 2010,09:50
I dunno, a while back, the Supreme Court found a right to privacy. So I have no idea how this doesn't just shit all over it.
Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 23 2010,10:15
(TheCatt @ Nov. 23 2010,11:50) QUOTE I dunno, a while back, the Supreme Court found a right to privacy. So I have no idea how this doesn't just shit all over it. You just don't understand the safety implications of your pesky freedoms. Go cower under a rock before the terrorists blow you, your friends, & your relatives up on each and every airplane that flies out of any airport ever. Posted by GORDON on Nov. 23 2010,16:54
The prohibiting-camera thing is coming.< http://wewontfly.com/photography-terrorism-airports > I especially like the part about training TSA gropers on how to block camera angles with their bodies so they don't get caught breaking the rules. Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 23 2010,19:18
Ah, SeaTac. Motherfuck that airport to hell. May its foulness rot.
Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 24 2010,04:39
< comic >
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 24 2010,11:21
Got this elsewhere:QUOTE Arguments I have heard in this thread against the TSA:
- Massively expensive - Time consuming procedures - Not actually effective - Backscatter violates privacy - Backscatter may be harmful - Patdowns are overly invasive and humiliating - Security measures aren't applied across the board anyway - Lots of news stories about abuse of power - Lots of news stories about procedure not being followed - Government advisers becoming rich from promoting the new machines - Many suggestions for improving implementation Arguments in this thread for the TSA: - Go cry more - TSA agents can't help it if they break the rules and go power-mad - Don't travel if you don't like it Posted by GORDON on Nov. 25 2010,09:24
So word on the street is that the TSA turned off the scanners yesterday and weren't giving the pat-downs, in order to defang the protest. News media completely missed that in their reporting of "protest didn't affect anything."Slick move, but still evil. I guess the scanners aren't really all that important, anyway, if they can just stop using them for a day. Posted by GORDON on Nov. 25 2010,17:39
Napolitano: Yeah, peeps really hate these things at airports. Fuck you, we'll require them on trains and boats, too. Keep bitching, assholes.< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....transit > Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 25 2010,20:09
(thibodeaux @ Nov. 22 2010,07:56) QUOTE That's the "don't touch my junk" guy. So, it sounds like the alternatives are: 1) get scanned, 2) get groped, 3) leave and pay $10k. WTF? You read that correctly. And a judge somewhere has already upheld that and allowed a civil trial to go forward. The reasoning is that if you let people just leave once they've been selected for extra screening then terrorists can try multiple times until they get through without being selected to be fully screened. Sort of like Russian Roulette Security, I guess. The trigger must be pulled until the bullet is fired, no backing out once the game has started. Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 26 2010,08:58
QUOTE Napolitano: Yeah, peeps really hate these things at airports. Fuck you, we'll require them on trains and boats, too. Keep bitching, assholes. Looks like B. Rock's insanity has shot right past Jimmy Carter and he's now closing in on Richard Nixon. There ain't too many shittier presidents after that. QUOTE You read that correctly. And a judge somewhere has already upheld that and allowed a civil trial to go forward. And that 100% clinches it right there. Fuck flying with the TSA forever. Posted by thibodeaux on Dec. 01 2010,05:23
File under schadenfreude: I'm getting a big kick out of seeing my liberal friends on Facebook complain about the TSA.
Posted by GORDON on Dec. 01 2010,07:31
(thibodeaux @ Dec. 01 2010,08:23) QUOTE File under schadenfreude: I'm getting a big kick out of seeing my liberal friends on Facebook complain about the TSA. But they all lay it flat at Bush's feet, which is only partially honest. Unless I am mistaken Homeland Security is under the Executive Branch, which means the President is in charge of the new rules. Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 01 2010,07:34
(GORDON @ Dec. 01 2010,09:31) QUOTE Unless I am mistaken Homeland Security is under the Executive Branch, which means the President is in charge of the new rules. If our intelligence operations weren't such a gigantic clusterfuck, that absolute joke of a worthless cabinet department would never have been created in the first place. Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 02 2010,09:56
QUOTE TSA regional security director James Marchand advises parents whose kids are upset by TSA groping to make a game of it, a suggestion that alarmed sex-abuse prevention experts, since "Telling a child that they are engaging in a game is 'one of the most common ways' that sexual predators use to convince children to engage in inappropriate contact." < Here > Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 02 2010,10:07
Anyone feel like writing a spambot that constantly e-mails out "Seriously, what the fuck are you thinking," messages to every Congressional & Homeland Security e-mail address you can find?
Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 02 2010,10:44
Now you can also be assured that no terrorist is going to fly a bus into a skyscraper.You know, we Americans tell the folks in the UK that they are living in a Big Brother state because of the cameras everywhere. We may not have the same camera problem they do, but we're moving that way ourselves in a more hands-on manner. How much longer before you have to pass through a "safety checkpoint" to use a major highway? Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 02 2010,10:53
On a lighter note: < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFVNbPuyrXk > (NSFW language)
Posted by GORDON on Dec. 02 2010,11:06
(TPRJones @ Dec. 02 2010,12:56) QUOTE QUOTE TSA regional security director James Marchand advises parents whose kids are upset by TSA groping to make a game of it, a suggestion that alarmed sex-abuse prevention experts, since "Telling a child that they are engaging in a game is 'one of the most common ways' that sexual predators use to convince children to engage in inappropriate contact." < Here > Was discussing this at a family thing the other day, and one of my left-leaning relatives, when hearing I had no intention of ever putting my son trough the Gate Rape, "Why don't you just tell him it is a game, and they are looking for a prize?" Cute, but then when he doesn't win the "game" he is then a loser and has still been molested. Ha. But seriously, I will not be flying (on my own dime-bidness is still bidness) unless these new rules ease up, and now there are two trips this is putting a "bummer" on due to having to drive. Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 02 2010,11:36
100 years ago, mass commercial air transportation was damn near fantasy. In the past decade, the U.S. gov't has made it one of the most unpleasant, demeaning, bureaucratic, inefficient processes known to mankind. I'd rather take my chances with a pissed off terrorist and his bomb in mid-flight than let any gov't official inspect my baggage or person. If they dropped any & all security precautions, I'd still prefer that situation over what we've got.
Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 02 2010,11:38
(TPRJones @ Dec. 02 2010,12:44) QUOTE Now you can also be assured that no terrorist is going to fly a bus into a skyscraper. You know, we Americans tell the folks in the UK that they are living in a Big Brother state because of the cameras everywhere. We may not have the same camera problem they do, but we're moving that way ourselves in a more hands-on manner. How much longer before you have to pass through a "safety checkpoint" to use a major highway? QUOTE How much longer before you have to pass through a "safety checkpoint" to use a major highway? That's the sort of shit that'd have me looking for a new country. Posted by GORDON on Dec. 02 2010,11:43
I said somewhere before... maybe this thread? We are not far from being searched whenever we leave our homes.
Posted by thibodeaux on Dec. 02 2010,12:23
(TPRJones @ Dec. 02 2010,13:44) QUOTE Now you can also be assured that no terrorist is going to fly a bus into a skyscraper. But they're also looking for illegal aliens and smuggled cash. Again: it's always about the drugs. Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 02 2010,16:17
Illegal search and seizure is cool! All the popular governments are doing it these days!
Posted by GORDON on Dec. 08 2010,10:12
Pilots exempt. Air waitresses exempt.Muslims get special treatment. < http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/205342.php > Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 08 2010,12:19
I'm wrestling with breaking down & getting another ticket just this one more time for the holidays or dealing with a fun-filled solo jaunt through southern Minnesota, Iowa, and northern Missouri. It's a hell of a tough call.
Posted by DoctorChaos on Dec. 08 2010,13:22
(GORDON @ Dec. 08 2010,13:12) QUOTE Pilots exempt. Air waitresses exempt. Muslims get special treatment. < http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/205342.php > So what was the point of these screenings? Why are we coddling the only group that has openly terrorized us? If we are to be fair, everyone must be treated the same. Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 08 2010,16:15
Fuck that. Here's how we handle this shit ... Everyone can start their own personal branch/denomination of Islam. "Now, walk through this scanner here..." "Can't. Allah says those are the work of Infidels." Posted by DoctorChaos on Dec. 08 2010,17:43
You know, I was trying to think of something along those line but was too pissed to think clearly.Your bother in Allah... Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 08 2010,21:33
We just need to ...A) Have every member of each of the three major western religions become a member in every other one. or B) Organize all three under one mega-faith. Hell, there's already a goddamn good foundation there. Posted by GORDON on Dec. 09 2010,07:25
The TSA is backing down, realizes they crossed the line with the scanners.Just kidding. The government is buying them a bunch more. < http://www.libertycentral.org/house-s....2010-12 > Posted by GORDON on Dec. 12 2010,18:27
(GORDON @ Dec. 08 2010,13:12) QUOTE Pilots exempt. Air waitresses exempt. Muslims get special treatment. Mexicans exempt. < http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010....be.html > Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 12 2010,19:16
Gordon, those people are mis-understanding and therefore mis-reporting what is happening.The trusted traveler program is for customs, not for airport security. These people get expedited pass through customs, although may still be called out for additional screenings when entering the country. It also applies to land traffic through borders, etc. It's a trade/business thing. Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 12 2010,19:18
< This is the program referred to. >
Posted by GORDON on Dec. 14 2010,06:09
Hey look they stole my thread title.< http://www.cnn.com/2010....pt=Sbin > Posted by thibodeaux on Dec. 16 2010,10:36
Random thought. You sometimes see people defending the gropers, saying something like, "They are just doing their job."Well, no, they're NOT. Their job, I would assume, is to make airline travel more secure. The gropers, however, have no idea how to do that. So they create procedures, claim those procedures promote security, and then FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE BRAINLESSLY. They are confusing MEANS with ENDS. Their job, which is the ends, is security. Groping is an alleged means. It's like a quarterback throwing an interception, then saying, "We called a play and it's not my fault a defender was there instead of a receiver. I did my job." WRONG. Your job is to win the game, not mindlessly follow plays. Posted by unkbill on Dec. 16 2010,17:13
On that note at a family gathering my sister brought up that Islraelly airports have people that talk to people. Highly trained like the guy on true lies. Look for oddities in manors and the like. It takes people alot to be good liars. And if the plot has more than one person in on it how likely is it that they could all be that good.I like the idea. Nothing intrusive about someone asking you some questions. I bet they come up with some duzzies. How was your day? Followed by Do you like apples? Posted by thibodeaux on Dec. 16 2010,17:30
Yeah. I think the problem there is that there is one only one real airport in Israel.Plus our government is constitutionally required to hire retarded citizens, or something. Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 16 2010,19:20
Yeah, that would require competence. I doubt there's many recorded instances in history of our government having a surplus of that.
Posted by thibodeaux on Dec. 17 2010,12:04
< Just doing their job >.
Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 19 2010,09:53
QUOTE According to one report, undercover TSA agents testing security at a Newark airport terminal on one day in 2006 found that TSA screeners failed to detect concealed bombs and guns 20 out of 22 times. A 2007 government audit leaked to USA Today revealed that undercover agents were successful slipping simulated explosives and bomb parts through Los Angeles's LAX airport in 50 out of 70 attempts, and at Chicago's O'Hare airport agents made 75 attempts and succeeded in getting through undetected 45 times. If the TSA sucks this much, one can only assume the terrorists are either more incompetent or have just stopped caring. Posted by thibodeaux on Dec. 21 2010,15:20
At RDU on Sunday, they had the machines but didn't scan everybody. I don't know if it was random or what. I was neither scanned nor groped.
Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 21 2010,16:46
Probably logistical. They can't scan everyone all the time everywhere; it'd take forever, particularly this time of year.
Posted by GORDON on Dec. 23 2010,10:43
TSA is trolling the "We wont fly" message board.... on our dime.< http://www.infowars.com/homelan....ly-blog > Posted by GORDON on Dec. 24 2010,08:32
Pilot records major flaws in airport security, is immediately raided by TSA.< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....l-pilot > Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 25 2010,13:03
< Security Theatre Follies >
Posted by GORDON on Jan. 30 2011,15:56
TSA no longer allowing airports to replace TSA with private security.< http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/01/29/tsa.private/index.html?hpt=Sbin > The new TSA union has no opinion about the decision, I'm sure. Posted by Malcolm on Jan. 30 2011,16:16
QUOTE TSA chief John Pistole said Friday he has decided not to expand the program beyond the current 16 airports, saying he does not see any advantage to it. Blind. Mother. Fucker. Good to know you're there to serve the public, John. Go tongue fuck a light socket and die. Posted by DoctorChaos on Jan. 31 2011,07:40
Let's review. We can't fly, we are about to lose the internet with this kill switch and tiered internet deal, we can't record police. When did we time travel back to 1930's Germany? Or is it present day Egypt?
Posted by GORDON on Jan. 31 2011,07:54
Hope and change.... liberalism is about control.
Posted by Malcolm on Jan. 31 2011,11:48
(GORDON @ Jan. 31 2011,09:54) QUOTE Hope and change.... liberalism is about control. The TSA/airport bullshit got kicked off when the last admin decided to create a new cabinet department to fuck us over. Posted by GORDON on Jan. 31 2011,11:51
Yeah. And back then we didn't have the invasive pat downs, the TSA wasn't allowed to unionize, and airports were free to have their own security.
Posted by Malcolm on Jan. 31 2011,12:38
Just because the dudes after trashed it worse, it doesn't absolve the dudes before from starting it.
Posted by GORDON on Jan. 31 2011,12:50
(Malcolm @ Jan. 31 2011,15:38) QUOTE Just because the dudes after trashed it worse, it doesn't absolve the dudes before from starting it. Never said it did, Mr. Argument. Posted by GORDON on Mar. 04 2011,20:39
(GORDON @ Feb. 02 2010,10:21) QUOTE I am still making the call. We'll all be scanned constantly in the nearish future. I'm guessing within 25 years. Could Backscatter Scanners Be Coming To City Streets? < http://consumerist.com/2011....ts.html > Posted by GORDON on May 25 2011,16:53
Feds threaten to turn Texas into a no-fly zone if they pass a law making it illegal for the TSA to molest people.< http://www.rawstory.com/rs....mes-law > QUOTE We aren‘t even prohibiting the pat-downs, per se. We're just saying you can't go straight to third base.
Posted by thibodeaux on May 25 2011,17:05
Wish they'd had the balls to do it.
Posted by TheCatt on May 25 2011,18:04
QUOTE TSA would likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew." Sooooo, they're going to ground the entire country? Posted by GORDON on May 25 2011,19:11
Texas should invite the feds to leave their soil, like South Carolina did in 1861.
Posted by Malcolm on May 25 2011,20:59
(TheCatt @ May 25 2011,20:04) QUOTE QUOTE TSA would likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew." Sooooo, they're going to ground the entire country? I bet you a trillion dollars they'd try. Posted by TheCatt on May 26 2011,05:56
(Malcolm @ May 25 2011,23:59) QUOTE (TheCatt @ May 25 2011,20:04) QUOTE QUOTE TSA would likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew." Sooooo, they're going to ground the entire country? I bet you a trillion dollars they'd try. No, I'm saying that the TSA cannot ensure the safety of anything and is a complete joke. Therefore, they'd need to ground everything all the time. Posted by thibodeaux on May 26 2011,06:10
I got it.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 06 2011,04:50
< http://www.foxnews.com/us....estnews >QUOTE "I think anything the country is doing to protect us is all well and good," Austin resident Janet Bates told MyFoxAustin.com. "If someone wants to file a complaint, they can file a complaint. I don't think we need laws."
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 07 2011,15:06
TSA is doing their part to anger our allies.< http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news....-bottom > Posted by GORDON on Jun. 11 2011,14:09
TSA fucks with a mentally handicapped guy.< http://www.foxnews.com/us....estnews > Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 11 2011,15:53
QUOTE When the father tried to intervene and explain Drew’s disability, he said the two agents said, “Please, sir, we know what we’re doing.” The agents confiscated a six-inch plastic hammer, something Drew had carried with him for 20 years for comfort. Agents called it a security threat, his father said, adding that they tapped the wall with it and said, “See, it’s hard. It could be used as a weapon.” Bad judgement? Nooooooo. Bad judgement got left in the dust on this one. You could use this for a SNL skit was little to no modification. And sure as shit not "isolated bad judgement." Posted by thibodeaux on Jun. 11 2011,17:40
(Malcolm @ Jun. 11 2011,18:53) QUOTE “See, it’s hard. It could be used as a weapon.” That's what SHE said! Posted by GORDON on Jun. 23 2011,09:07
< TSA will try to molest fewer kids, but no promises. >
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 23 2011,14:02
QUOTE Pistole explained to committee members that a female security screener performed a pat-down search on the 6-year-old girl because the child had moved while passing through an airport body imaging machine. That prevented the device from getting a clear reading that the child was not carrying any banned objects through airport security. "We have changed the policy to say that there'll be repeated efforts made to resolve that without a pat-down," Pistole told committee members. How about not using those fucking Orwellian machines, you motherfucking asshole? Posted by thibodeaux on Jun. 23 2011,19:10
Here's what I can't figure out. Half the time when I've traveled since the machines came out, they just wave people through the older metal-detector door-frame things, and bypass the naked-picture machines. So...if we don't need to scan EVERYBDOY, why do we need to scan ANYBODY?
Posted by thibodeaux on Jun. 23 2011,19:17
QUOTE However, during the committee meeting, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, grilled Pistole about erring too far on the side of safety. "This isn't to say we don't believe in safety procedures," Paul said. "But I think I feel less safe when we're doing these invasive exams on a 6-year-old. It makes me think that you're clueless, that you think she's going to attack our country, and that you're not doing your research on the people who would attack our country." Pistole suggested a pat-down of a child is not entirely unjustified. "Unfortunately we know that terrorists around the world have used children as suicide bombers," Pistole replied. 1. "It makes me think that you're clueless." POW! How can you not love Rand Paul? 2. "[T]errorists around the world have used children as suicide bombers." Sure; lots of American-born non-muslims have strapped TNT to their little blond-haired daughters to try to blow up airplanes. Lying bastard. Who besides Muslims of African and Middle-Eastern origin is doing this? Posted by GORDON on Jun. 27 2011,14:33
TSA cancer cluster suspected.< http://epic.org/privacy/backscatter/radiation_cluster_dosimeter.pdf > Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 27 2011,14:38
On the bright side, it appears that the TSA themselves are at the most risk. Which is okay by me. I won't shed any tears for them.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 27 2011,14:45
Heard about the thing today with the TSA forcing a 95 year old woman to remove her adult diaper? Well, the TSA is denying that.Except... < http://www.cnn.com/2011....t=hp_t2 > QUOTE The woman's daughter, Jean Weber, told CNN on Monday that the TSA agents acted professionally and never ordered the removal of her mother's diaper. However, Weber said the agents made it clear that her mother could not board the plane unless they were able to inspect the diaper. They didn't say it had to be removed. They just said she wasn't flying until it was removed. Huge difference. Posted by GORDON on Jul. 01 2011,10:47
Forbes.com: Time to close the security theater.< http://blogs.forbes.com/artcard....theater > Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 01 2011,15:41
(GORDON @ Jul. 01 2011,12:47) QUOTE Forbes.com: Time to close the security theater. < http://blogs.forbes.com/artcard....theater > If only there were some federal budgetary crisis that was forcing us to shutdown worthless gov't offices... Posted by GORDON on Jul. 13 2011,19:16
(GORDON @ Jun. 23 2011,12:07) QUOTE < TSA will try to molest fewer kids, but no promises. > Mother arrested when she wouldn't let her kids be touched. < http://www.tennessean.com/article....rcation > "Hey... we said NO PROMISES." Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 13 2011,20:32
Apparently their new policy was to try harder to get them to use the Child-Porn-O-Vision scanners, then if they refused still pat them down. So in other words there were no changes to the policy. Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 13 2011,20:59
If the ACLU doesn't take this one, then they're officially worthless.
Posted by thibodeaux on Jul. 14 2011,05:33
(Malcolm @ Jul. 01 2011,18:41) QUOTE (GORDON @ Jul. 01 2011,12:47) QUOTE Forbes.com: Time to close the security theater. < http://blogs.forbes.com/artcard....theater > If only there were some federal budgetary crisis that was forcing us to shutdown worthless gov't offices... Yeah, but there ARE NO "worthless" govt offices...to the unionized govt employees. Those things are ALL gold! Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 14 2011,06:09
I'm starting to think that in America II anyone who works for the government, holds elected office, or accepts government subsidies of any sort accounting for more than 10% of their income should not be allowed to vote.
Posted by thibodeaux on Jul. 14 2011,07:33
I don't think ANYBODY should be allowed to vote.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 14 2011,08:14
(thibodeaux @ Jul. 14 2011,10:33) QUOTE I don't think ANYBODY should be allowed to vote. I want to go back to the landowner system. Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 14 2011,19:14
(GORDON @ Jul. 14 2011,10:14) QUOTE (thibodeaux @ Jul. 14 2011,10:33) QUOTE I don't think ANYBODY should be allowed to vote. I want to go back to the landowner system. I'll be there leading the the uprising against that. Bring it, patricians. Posted by thibodeaux on Jul. 29 2011,09:19
< Our services touch every citizen >These people are insane. Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 29 2011,16:57
Yep. And they're only getting more cash.
|