|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: TSA = Tremendously Stupid Asses
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 01-26-2013 04:57 PM
Man With 4th Amendment Written on Chest Wins Trial Over Airport Arrest
quote:
By David Kravets
01.25.13
A Virginia man who wrote an abbreviated version of the Fourth Amendment on his body and stripped to his shorts at an airport security screening area won a trial Friday in his lawsuit seeking $250,000 in damages for being detained on a disorderly conduct charge.
Aaron Tobey claimed in a civil rights lawsuit (.pdf) that in 2010 he was handcuffed and held for about 90 minutes by the Transportation Security Administration at the Richmond International Airport after he began removing his clothing to display on his chest a magic-marker protest of airport security measures.
“Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated,” his chest and gut read.
In sending the case to trial, unless there’s a settlement, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 and reversed a lower court judge and invoked Benjamin Franklin in the process. According to the opinion by Judge Roger Gregory:
Here, Mr. Tobey engaged in a silent, peaceful protest using the text of our Constitution—he was well within the ambit of First Amendment protections. And while it is tempting to hold that First Amendment rights should acquiesce to national security in this instance, our Forefather Benjamin Franklin warned against such a temptation by opining that those ‘who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.’ We take heed of his warning and are therefore unwilling to relinquish our First Amendment protections—even in an airport.
Tobey didn’t want to go through the advanced imaging technology X-ray machines, or so-called nude body scanners, that were cropping up at airports nationwide. Instead, when it was his turn to be screened, he was going to opt for an intrusive pat-down, and removed most of his clothing in the process.
Among other things, the federal lawsuit claimed wrongful detention and a breach of the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment. Tobey was on his way to Wisconsin for his grandmother’s funeral. Despite his detainment, he made his flight.
According to the suit, while under interrogation, the authorities wanted to know “about his affiliation with, or knowledge of, any terrorist organizations, if he had been asked to do what he did by any third party, and what his intentions and goals were.”
Two weeks later, Henrico County prosecutors dropped the misdemeanor charge against him, and he sued the Transportation Security Administration and others.
In dissent, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote:
Had this protest been launched somewhere other than in the security-screening area, we would have a much different case. But Tobey’s antics diverted defendants from their passenger-screening duties for a period, a diversion that nefarious actors could have exploited to dangerous effect. Defendants responded as any passenger would hope they would, summoning local law enforcement to remove Tobey—and the distraction he was creating — from the scene.
If I was his grandmother, I would be very proud of him.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 01-26-2013 04:59 PM
TSA Pulls Plug on Airport Nude Body Scanners
quote:
By David Kravets
01.18.13
The Transportation Security Administration is pulling the plug on its nude body scanner program, a decision announced Friday that closes the door to a tumultuous privacy battle with the public scoring a rare victory.
Travelers will continue to go through one of two types of scanners already deployed, but images of naked bodies will no longer be produced. Instead, software will instead show a generic outline of a person.
What the TSA sees using millimeter wave technology without Automated Target Recognition software
First tested in 2007, the advanced imaging technology scanners became the object of intense media and public scrutiny around Thanksgiving in 2010. In addition to privacy concerns, some experts maintained the scanners’ safety was unproven, and that the technology was ineffective in detecting smuggled weapons and explosives. Travelers are permitted to opt-out of the scan, but are then subjected to an aggressive pat-down procedure.
The government said Friday it is abandoning its deployment of so-called backscatter technology machines produced by Rapiscan because the company could not meet deadlines to switch to generic imaging with so-called Automated Target Recognition software, the TSA said. Instead, the TSA will continue to use and deploy more millimeter wave technology scanners produced by L-3 Communications, which has adopted the generic-outline standard.
“Due to its inability to deploy non-imaging Automated Target Recognition (ATR) software by the Congressionally-mandated June 2013 deadline, TSA has terminated part of its contract with Rapiscan,” the TSA said in a statement to Wired. “By June 2013 travelers will only see machines which have ATR that allow for faster throughput.”
The announcement comes three months after Rapiscan came under suspicion for possibly manipulating tests on the privacy software designed to prevent the machines from producing graphic body images. The TSA sent a letter in November to the parent company of Rapiscan, the maker of the so-called backscatter machines, requesting information about the testing of the software to determine if there was malfeasance.
The government has spent about $90 million replacing traditional magnetometers with the controversial body-scanning machines at airports nationwide.
Rapiscan had a contract to produce 500 machines for the TSA at a cost of about $180,000 each. The company could be fined and barred from participating in government contracts, or employees could face prison terms if it is found to have defrauded the government. In all, the 250 Rapiscan machines already deployed are to be phased out of airports nationwide and will be replaced with machines produced by L-3 Communications.
The move away from Rapiscan machines is more than a boost to privacy.
Unlike the competing millimeter-wave technology produced by L-3 Communications that employ radio waves to detect metallic and non-metallic substances, the Rapiscan machines expose travelers to a small X-ray dose. The TSA and Rapiscan maintained the machines are safe, despite some academics telling the White House (.pdf) that the government did not adequately study the backscatter X-ray devices.
The TSA’s announcement ironically comes after its December decision to commission the National Academy of Sciences — a private non-profit filled with engineering and science scholars — ”to estimate radiation exposure resulting from backscatter X-ray advanced imaging technology.”
Both companies’ machines were the subject of a lawsuit brought by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which charged that the machines were ineffective, unsafe and were an unconstitutional privacy breach. A federal appeals court said the TSA breached federal law in 2009 when it formally adopted the airport scanners as the “primary” method of screening. The judges said the TSA violated the Administrative Procedures Act for failing to have a 90-day public comment period, and ordered the agency to undertake one, which is scheduled for this spring.
But a week after the July 2011 decision, which said the machines were not an unconstitutional privacy breach, the TSA announced its move to the generic-imaging style.
“We won,” Marc Rotenberg, EPIC’s executive director, said in an e-mail.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 02-19-2013 07:00 AM
quote: Chris Slycord
Who's claimed that moving from x-ray backscatter based units to millimeter wave was over privacy?
Manchester Airport (Britain's biggest outside London) did so in a blaze of publicity around 18 months ago, which funnily enough was just before the European Union banned backscatter machines on health grounds.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry over this:
quote: The Independent
Robbers steal diamonds worth '£32m' in 'gigantic' heist at Brussels airport
The raid, which it is thought to have involved up to eight men, took place on the tarmac at Brussels international airport
Armed robbers reportedly stole diamonds worth an estimated £32m during a daring raid in Belgium yesterday, it has emerged.
The raid, which is thought to have involved up to eight men, took place on the tarmac at Brussels international airport. The diamonds were taken from the hold of a Switzerland-bound plane.
The men are currently being hunted by police.
Brussels prosecutor's spokeswoman Anja Bijnens said the armed and masked men crashed through the airport's perimeter fence with two cars yesterday.
Within minutes they made their way to the plane, took the cache of precious stones and drove off into the darkness. Police found a burned-out van close to the airport later last night but said they were still looking for clues.
According to local media the thieves are reported to have broken through a fence at Brussel's main airport with two vehicles at around 7:47pm local time.
In a statement the airport said: "The men in the car rode to a Swiss airplane where they stole valuable goods," it said.
"There was no shooting, and no one got injured. This lasted only a few minutes, and after that, they left the airport domain through the damaged fence."
The robbers struck as the diamonds were being loaded onto a plane bound for Zurich.
The heist was estimated at some 50 million US dollars (£32.3 million) in diamonds, said Caroline De Wolf, of the Antwerp World Diamond Centre.
"What we are talking about is obviously a gigantic sum," she told the VRT broadcasting network.
Airport spokesman Jan Van Der Crujsse said the gang made a hole in the perimeter fence and drove right up to the Swiss passenger plane, which was ready to leave.
The robbers got out of the car, flashed their arms and took the loot from the hold. Without firing a shot, they then drove off through the same hole in the fence, completing the spectacular theft within minutes, he said.
Mr Van Der Crujsse could not explain how the area could be so vulnerable to theft. "We abide by the most stringent rules," he said.
The Swiss flight, operated by Helvetic Airways, was cancelled after the raid. Swiss, an affiliate of Germany's Deutsche Lufthansa, declined to comment on the heist, citing the ongoing judicial investigation.
The insurance for air transport - handled sometimes by airlines themselves or external insurance companies - is usually relatively cheap because it is considered to be the safest way of transporting small high-value items, logistics experts say.
Unlike a car or a truck, a plane cannot be attacked by robbers once it is on its way, and it is considered to be very safe before departure and after arrival because the aircraft is always within the confines of an airport - which are normally highly secured.
So, let me get this straight: a bunch of armed robbers drove through what was supposed to be a state-of-the-art airport perimeter fence, Blues Brothers-style, knocked off a planeload of virtually unguarded diamonds, and then quite simply left the way they came, totally unchallenged? And what were the security people doing while all this was going on? Conducting anal probe examinations on a 95 year-old nun, perhaps?
It's a good job there haven't been any real terrorists trying to cause any mischief in that airport recently...
| IP: Logged
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 02-19-2013 10:03 AM
quote: Leo Enticknap
...state-of-the-art airport perimeter fence...
Yeah, right! I've seen more secure fencing at the zoo!
The enclosure around my airport is just regular, old Cyclone fence with barbed wire crown. The airport police patrol the perimeter a couple-few times a day. Other than that, the grounds are virtually wide open.
A few years ago, a stray dog got onto the airport grounds and was running around on the main runway. Airport security spent, literally, a half hour chasing that dog in their SUVs. The dog was having the time of his life playing tag with the airport cops. Finally, somebody got the bright idea to get a ham sandwich (or some kind of treat) and use it to lure the dog into the car.
An enterprising individual could practically knock out an airplane, taking off or landing, using a slingshot and a good sized rock!
Airport security my foot!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 02-21-2013 08:23 AM
quote: Joe Redifer
I have a problem using my tax money to pay for something that's not very effective and was just a big cash-in for the company who made them. But I guess such a thing is needed to placate our insanely paranoid population who always thinks it's in danger from scary terrorists.
I recently watched a series of documentaries about air crash investigations; there must have been several dozen of them. In nearly every one of them somebody, often a trained accident investigator, would say 'Our first thoughts were that it was a bomb' or something similar.
By far the biggest cause of the accidents was human error, with a few mechanical failures, one or two of what might be called 'Acts of God', generally weather, and if I remember correctly, one caused by terrorists.
Aircraft accidents are very rare events, compared to the number of flights which take place every day, and of those terrorism accounts for a tiny proportion. Why on earth would a bomb be the first thing you would think of? Surely it would be more appropriate for it to be the last thing you consider when you've eliminated everything else.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 02-21-2013 09:49 AM
quote: Stephen Furley
Why on earth would a bomb be the first thing you would think of?
I don't have a problem with an investigator asking the question of whether a bomb or an act of terrorism is to blame but, more properly, it should be asked whether terrorism can be ruled out.
These days, terrorism is a very real possibility. If it is the cause it would dramatically change the course of investigation. As such, it is right to consider it as the cause but it should take a short time to either confirm it or rule it out. Once ruled out, the investigation should proceed normally.
When an accident occurs, it should only take a few minutes to a few hours to rule out terrorism as the cause but, certainly, no less than the first day. After that, it should be dropped completely.
Unfortunately, our news media loves to dwell on stupid ideas. They love to use sensationalism to pander to the masses. This is why I think, when incidents like this occur, whether it be a plane crash, a mass shooting or whatever, there should be a 24 hour "news blackout" during which only the basic details of the incident are reported.
Authorities and news outlets should simply say, "A disaster occurred. Authorities are investigating the cause. More details will be released after more reliable information becomes available." This would give the police, the rescue crews and the investigators a chance to do their jobs without having to worry about cameras being stuck in their faces.
I think doing that would stop these "red herrings" that worry the public about terrorism, unnecessarily.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 03-02-2013 11:18 AM
quote: Stephen Furley
Aircraft accidents are very rare events, compared to the number of flights which take place every day, and of those terrorism accounts for a tiny proportion. Why on earth would a bomb be the first thing you would think of? Surely it would be more appropriate for it to be the last thing you consider when you've eliminated everything else.
At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious, because the objective of terrorists is to terrorise people, and to some extent they've succeeded. That is why airliners are one of their favourite targets, despite the fact that blowing up an airliner is probably the most difficult and expensive way to kill large numbers of innocent people. A catastrophic event in mid-air is almost always unsurvivable, and because of that it's guaranteed to make it into the headlines, and stay there.
I noticed that the journalists' first instinct was to speculate about terrorism after the AF447 crash. It's one that sticks in my mind, because I was due to cross the Atlantic in an Air France A330 the day after AF447 should have arrived in Paris. Sure enough, there was very intense security at CDG, closer than usual questioning - it was clear that everyone was seriously on edge. But of course, as Stephen points out, the cause of AF447 had nothing to do with terrorism whatsoever. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't recall anyone being killed by terrorism on a civilian airliner since 9/11.
As the 7/7 bombers demonstrated, there are other targets to go after that are basically undefendable - your only hope of preventing an attack on them is to identify and catch the people who are planning it before they actually do it. I could carry a suitcase full of semtex onto a packed commuter train at York station tomorrow and, just as long as no-one stopped me while I was obtaining the ingredients and making the bomb, easily cause a three-figure death toll. Thankfully, the security services are good enough at stopping these plans in the gestation stage (e.g. those idiots in Burnley who were sentenced a couple of weeks ago) that this very rarely happens. I suspect that if civil aviation took a similar approach and relaxed the TSA-style checks a bit, nothing bad would happen: especially given that, unlike road or rail travel, the identity of every single air passenger is known well in advance of when they actually attempt to travel.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 03-21-2013 02:38 PM
You might find this hard to believe, but I actually encountered a polite and non-aggressive TSA person yesterday!
Changing planes in Seattle, the officer at the entrance to the screening line didn't like my passport, because the lettering and crest on the cover page have virtually rubbed off (through intensive use, basically). He then called his supervisor, who took me into a side room, and immediately apologised profusely for having to put me through the secondary screening near the end of a very long trip - not what we're used to from them at all! She then tried to go into a computer database (presumably to check my record of entries and exits on that passport number before, though she didn't say), but encountered a problem. At that point she got her boss in for permission to let me go without the screening, so that I wouldn't miss my flight, which he agreed to.
I think this means that I need to replace my passport when I next get back to the UK (even though it has another 3.5 years of validity left to run), to avoid hassles like this in future. But I was pleasantly surprised that the TSA didn't instantly decide to treat me as the enemy, given some people's experience in the past.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 03-21-2013 02:46 PM
That is shocking. What does that make the "good experience" score now? 94,148,643,548,763,441,879 to 1?
A few weeks back I was doing site surveys and went through security at an airport I had never been to. I left the TSA area and after looking at the map decided to go to the other terminal, as there was a food establishment I decided to patronize. Big signs with arrows "this way to concourse X" and I followed them, only to realize I had taken the "secure exit" hallway.
Now this secure exit hallway was every bit as wide as the hallway into the other terminal, and the only sign stating I was exiting the secured area was at LEAST 50 feet before the exit and it was about half the size of a movie poster. (I looked for it later.)
I realized I was in the wrong hall well before the actual exit, and the security guard was sitting on her ass right there when I turned around and smiled to her and said "oops, I'm trying to get to that terminal."
The old hag started yelling at me telling me I had to go back through TSA security screening, even though she knew DAMN GOOD AND WELL that there was no way I was entering through the exit.
So there went another 20 minutes and more senseless bs. I was actually hoping they would make a stink about some of my items on the second go through so I could point out what a thorough job they did the first time, but both times they let me through with evil violations of toothpaste and deodorant size. Fortunately for the rest of the passengers, I decided not to blow the plane up with my toothpaste/deodorant explosive.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 12 pages: 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 11 12
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic