quote:

---

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano hinted this week that the body scanners and "enhanced" pat-downs that have caused a ruckus at airports across the country could be coming to a train station, port or subway near you.

In an interview on "Charlie Rose" that aired Monday, Napolitano said terrorists will continue to seek vulnerabilities in the nation's transportation systems.

"I think the tighter we get on aviation, we have to also be thinking now about going on to mass transit or to trains or maritime," she said. "So what do we need to be doing to strengthen our protections there?"

Napolitano's comments came as outrage grows over what some call intrusive X-ray scans and pat-downs that the Transportation Security Administration has used to screen airline passengers.

The full-body scanners show a person's contours on a computer in a private room removed from security checkpoints. But critics say they amount to virtual strip searches. Some have complained that the new enhanced pat-downs are humiliating and intrusive, too.

TSA officials say the procedures are necessary to ward off terror attacks like the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound plane last Christmas, allegedly by a Nigerian man who stashed explosives in his underwear.

And the procedures may be on the rise. Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, authored a bill in September that would allow testing of body scanners at certain federal buildings.

Despite attempts online to organize Thanksgiving travelers for a protest dubbed "National Opt-Out Day" on one of the busiest days of the year, very few passengers opted out of the full-body scans.

Napolitano has defended the screening procedures and criticized the protests.

"I really want to say, look, let's be realistic and use our common sense," she said last week, explaining that the screening technology has been in development since before the failed Christmas Day bombing attack last year.

"This is not about the government itself," she said. "We all have a role to play in security."

"And so I really regret some groups saying, 'Well, we don't want to be a part of that,'" she added. "I regret it because it's not what we're all about. What we're all about is shared responsibility."

---

quote:

---

“There are two aspects of terrorism. One aspect of terrorism is to kill you. The other aspect of terrorism is to create a disruption of your lifestyle through fear and intimidation," he tells the newspaper. "So they have still won, even though the underwear bomber was not successful in killing us. They have still won." West favors profiling likely terrorists at airports instead.

---

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr

---

If any agent EVER did what they did to that little girl to any of my kids they would have a serious problem on their hands.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

I do agree they shouldn't have to "enhanced screen" kids, but what happens when some dork puts a bomb in a muslim kid's butt? You know they're probably going to try that sometime.

---

That's more of the core problem than I think people realize. TSA has shown that they will put on a show to make people THINK they are somehow safer, when in reality they just go through their routine and wait for the next person to smuggle a bomb or something through in a different manner than before, then change their practices to prevent that from happening again.

The rectum is about the only place they aren't checking anymore, so it goes without saying that WILL be how the next bomb gets through. Once that happens, everyone will have to endure a TSA goon's finger up their hole for "national safety".
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-25-2010, 09:50 PM:
 
I have long said that the terrorists have won, just not in the way we thought they would. We have given up a lot of liberties and the terrorists are loving this. The latest bomb-in-a-package scare has made it more difficult to do business with other countries. For example, you can't import anything weighing more than 16 ounces from Japan as a result of this. This strikes right at capitalism. The terrorists have won and we have lost because we are a bunch of pussies. The TSA lets bad people on planes all the time, even ones who are on the NoFly list. If the security procedures that they provide make you feel safe, then you have a false sense of security or are downright stupid.

A few days ago on a flight to Denver some guy kept getting up and going to the bathroom because he had a medical condition. This freaked out some of the idiot passengers and they complained. The plane was searched top to bottom before anyone was allowed off and the man in question was escorted off and questioned. The pussification of America continues.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 11-25-2010, 09:58 PM:
 
I see nothing but a big long list of gripes on here (with the exception of Air Marshals on every flight and stealing the Israeli Airport security manual). . .

Anyone care to suggest an intelligent SOLUTION to this problem instead of the usual gripes how the end of the world is nigh?

Air Marshals probably wouldn't be much of a solution to a bomb on a plane. At that point it is too late. I think the real problem with airport security is that they're in bed with some big government security contractors and tech suppliers. Wouldn't surprise me if some of the buddies of the top dogs in the TSA are former military with connections to the same companies.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-25-2010, 10:22 PM:
 
You shouldn't be one to talk because you aren't coming up with anything usable.

I believe air marshals are already on each flight and armed. They travel incognito. But put it into perspective... yes, losing 3000 people in a terrorist act is bad and we should actively try to avoid having that happen again. But how many people die on highways each year? Far more. Also, anyone could drive their vehicle into a crowded space and kill bunches of people and even have the car blow up. But we don't have a government agency screening drivers every time they get into the car. Safety is only an illusion, good sir.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-25-2010, 10:25 PM:
 
Jonathan - you're not getting it. There is no solution because there is no problem. The TSA is a "solution" to a problem that does not exist.

Think about what happened every time there's been a terror threat to a plane. (Bomb or whatever.) The TSA had absolutely nothing to do with catching any of those people. It was ordinary citizens, or security in other countries, that did the dirty work. The TSA has done nothing but scare people, intimidate people, and confiscate a bunch of bottled water and nail clippers, not to mention tons of "weapons" like nail files and pocket knives that were never intended to be used as weapons.

All the TSA does is react to things that have happened, with the assumption that the same thing is going to happen again. But in reality the terrorists keep moving on to new things. How many more underwear bombers were there after the first guy? None. How many shoe bombers? None. How many guys trying to hijack a plane with boxcutters? None.

Even so, we're stuck with what we have, because no way is the government going to say "OK, everyone...we realize that this multi-billion dollar agency we created is completely impotent and unnecessary, so we're going back to the good old days of simple metal detectors, and by the way you can keep your shoes on too."

Joe's right on the money on this. We're just lucky there are plenty of brave non-pussies on every plane who will thwart any nonsense that happens. But they're probably not going to have much to do, because the terrorists are moving on. Me, I expect them to hit a non-flying target next time. Probably a shopping mall or a sports arena, or (most likely) the Internet.

Or who says they have to get a bomb ON a plane? Why not just walk into an airport lobby and set something off in the "non sterile area?" That could kill hundreds of people right there. So eventually the security checkpoint will probably be about 5 miles from the airport, and you'll have to get out of your car to be searched. And have the car searched too.
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 11-25-2010, 10:35 PM:
 
I have been blogging on some sites since this whole ridiculous war on terror how government is ruling by fear. I was hoping Obama's people would put an end to the nonsense we endured for years, but Janet Neopolitan is content with letting things continue in the same crappy way. She needs to be fired. Meanwhile Chertoff is making lots of money on security related businesses. HOw is that not a conflict of interest? At least they are not doing that whole orange alert nonsense to scare people into submission.

As others have said, the terrorists have already won when we have to suffer through air travel. It may not be a big deal for once a year travelers. But for people like me who travel at least once a month, this is terrible. People need to realize that there is no such thing as 100% safety.

The liquids rule is one of the dumbest rules out there. What is going to prevent three terrorists from combining a few 3 oz liquids into one 9 oz liquid past the security checkpoint? So what good is that limitation?

Shouldn't they concentrate on having some kind of safe sleeping gas knock out the terrorists if they do manage to take control of the plane? Pilots can secure the cockpit and just press a button that would release an odorless gas. Let's go back to common sense strategic screening. And let's face it. Until proven otherwise, no point in spending so much money securing an omaha-Boise flight.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-25-2010, 10:41 PM:
 
Given the TSA or the bombers...I'll take my chances with the terrorists/bombers. Think about what has been said right here on this forum. If Tony so much as raised his voice (1st amendment right) he would be carted away and his kid taken away (even temporarily)...

That is the USA? Isn't that the depiction of how the KGB and other communist organizations have been historically presented?

Where, in the US Constitution, does using air travel somehow terminate one's rights? Enough is enough.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-25-2010, 10:54 PM:
 
The ONE smart thing that has been done is the "hardened" cockpit doors. With those in place, there's pretty much no way a 9/11 scenario could happen again. So there's another reason why all the searching is mostly just "security theater." Put on a show for the folks. (Trouble is, it's a lousy show and too expensive...and people gripe about $10 movie tickets!)
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 11-25-2010, 11:06 PM:
 
So the TSA and airport screenings are best just done away with?

To be fair, airport screening DID catch the shoe bomber. What chaps my ass is that this "response" to the underwear bomber will have no effect on future attempts of this nature. . . He boarded the plane in Nigeria, far far away from strip searches and nudie body scanners.
 

---

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 11-25-2010, 11:44 PM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

There is no solution because there is no problem. The TSA is a "solution" to a problem that does not exist.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

The TSA has done nothing but scare people, intimidate people, and confiscate a bunch of bottled water and nail clippers, not to mention tons of "weapons" like nail files and pocket knives that were never intended to be used as weapons

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Given the TSA or the bombers...I'll take my chances with the terrorists/bombers. Think about what has been said right here on this forum. If Tony so much as raised his voice (1st amendment right) he would be carted away and his kid taken away (even temporarily)...

That is the USA? Isn't that the depiction of how the KGB and other communist organizations have been historically presented?

Where, in the US Constitution, does using air travel somehow terminate one's rights? Enough is enough.

---

quote: Jonathan Smith

---

So the TSA and airport screenings are best just done away with?

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

The pussification of America continues. AND: Safety is only an illusion, good sir.

---

My vote for quotes of the year.

And for those who don't know it, I live within 3 miles of LA Airport, and two of the tenants in my building work at the airport. They have horror stories aplenty since this whole debacle started.
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-25-2010, 11:55 PM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

However, I'm not aware of any TSA challenges though it should happen and I'm sure our ACLU will get it to the court some time.

---

quote: Jonathan Smith

---

To be fair, airport screening DID catch the shoe bomber.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

The TSA is a "solution" to a problem that does not exist.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

The TSA has done nothing but scare people, intimidate people, and confiscate a bunch of bottled water and nail clippers, not to mention tons of "weapons" like nail files and pocket knives that were never intended to be used as weapons.

---

And yet the most obvious weapon is permitted without question on every plane. Put your set of keys in your hand. (Make sure there are several on the chain.) Now grasp all but one of the keys in the palm of your hand to get a really good grip, and position the sharpest, most evil key you have between your first and second finger, as close to your knuckles as possible and pointing outward (Medeco keys are awesome for this). At this point all you have to do is take a swing.

TSA could not be more ignorant.

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

All the TSA does is react to things that have happened, with the assumption that the same thing is going to happen again.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

no way is the government going to say "OK, everyone...we realize that this multi-billion dollar agency we created is completely impotent and unnecessary

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Or who says they have to get a bomb ON a plane?

---

quote: Pravin Ratnam

---

Shouldn't they concentrate on having some kind of safe sleeping gas knock out the terrorists if they do manage to take control of the plane?

---

quote: (Emphasis added)

---

SHEPHERD
(continuing)
I've known Bob
Rumson for years. I've been operating
under the assumption that the reason
Bob devotes so much time and energy to
shouting at the rain was that he simply
didn't get it. Well, I was wrong.

SHEPHERD
(continuing)
Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't
get it. Bob's problem is that he
can't sell it. Nobody has ever won
an election by talking about what I
was just talking about.

SHEPHERD
(continuing)
This is a country made up of people
with hard jobs that they're terrified
of losing. The roots of freedom are
of little or no interest to them at
the moment. We are a nation afraid
to go out at night. We're a society
that has assigned low priority to
education and has looked the other
way while our public schools have
been decimated. We have serious
problems to solve, and we need
serious men to solve them. And
whatever your particular problem is,
friend, I promise you, Bob Rumson is
not the least bit interested in
solving it. He is interested in two
things and two things only: Making
you afraid of it and telling you
who's to blame for it. That, ladies
and gentlemen, is how you win
elections. You gather a group of
middle-aged, middle-class, middle-
income voters who remember with
longing an easier time, and you talk
to them about family and American
values and personal character. Then
you have an old photo of the
President's girlfriend. You scream
about patriotism and you tell them
she's to blame for their lot in life,
you go on television and you call her
a whore. Sydney Ellen Wade has done
nothing to you, Bob. She has done
nothing but put herself through law
school, prosecute criminals for five
years, represent the interests of
public school teachers for two years,
and lobby for the safety of our
natural resources.

---

quote: James Westbrook

---

I would think bomb sniffing dogs would be a better alternative.

---

Then there would be complaints from animal rights activists and also from people who are allergic to, or scared of, dogs.

It's a no-win situation. We're just screwed.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-26-2010, 05:12 PM:
 
I will have to say though, in the interest of fairness, that the TSA folks I have encountered have been pleasant and "firmly courteous." Mostly when they've seemed grouchy it's because they're trying to deal with 2 or 3 people at the same time.

The ones in Billings, Montana are downright folksy. "How ya doin' today? Just need to check that ID. Chilly out there this morning, isn't it? Thanks, have a great flight!"
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 11-26-2010, 07:35 PM:
 
I haven't traveled by air for 3 years but then, this month, I took two trips for work. After leaving home the second time I arrived at my motel and unpacked some things. I found this card (actual size about 8.5 inches by 3.5 inches) inside the case that I'd used to pack a tripod and three small light stands.



The good news is that whatever they disturbed was repacked the same way I originally packed it. But I really don't know why they thought a tripod and light stands were suspicious. There's nothing explosive about them and nothing dangerous when they're in checked baggage. All this shows me is that they aren't using any common sense when they decide what to inspect or who to frisk. And I feel soooo safe knowing that tripods are examined.
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-26-2010, 09:23 PM:
 

quote: Greg Anderson

---

All this shows me is that they aren't using any common sense when they decide what to inspect or who to frisk.

---

If it is truly a random search (as they claim), no common sense should be involved.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-26-2010, 10:29 PM:
 
Like I said, how about we look for terrorists? Five year old kids and old men in wheel chairs don't look like terrorists to anyone with common sense.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-27-2010, 02:24 AM:
 
A great Christmas gift for this holiday season

BTW, how often DO they change those blue gloves? I've never seen a box of them at a TSA checkpoint.
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 11-27-2010, 10:50 AM:
 
If "random" searches make us feel safer (I'm still trying to process the logic there) then maybe the Department of Homeland Security can start randomly seizing Internet domains to make the Internet safer.

Relevant news article about piracy and domain seizers

One day maybe I'll go to Film-Tech and see a nice, official-looking shut-down notice from the government.

Granted, illegal = illegal. But I thought the FBI was supposed to take care of this stuff. Who said that Homeland Security has more power to seize than the FBI? And who said that kids downloading movies falls under "Homeland Security" worries?
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-27-2010, 11:11 AM:
 

quote: Greg Anderson

---

Who said that Homeland Security has more power to seize than the FBI?

---

I'm guessing Homeland Security Act of 2002 but at 187 pages, you're on your own
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-27-2010, 11:12 AM:
 
Homeland Security would do much better worrying about shutting down web sites where "kids" download movies that radicalize them and then teach them how to blow themselves up at a crowded location in search of 79 virgins. THAT might actually be a government seizure that I could get behind.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-29-2010, 07:19 PM:
 
Man arrested for ejaculating during TSA pat-down
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 11-29-2010, 07:36 PM:
 
What was he supposed to do? Say stop? Stop them? He would have been thrown to the ground anyway for resisting for some reason.

How stupid.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-29-2010, 08:40 PM:
 
There is definitely a cause/effect relationship here.

Anyone notice the TSA agent's name? Even more fitting.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-29-2010, 08:58 PM:
 
I know. Makes me wonder if this is real, but it's from a site called "deadserious" so they are probably serious.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-29-2010, 10:44 PM:
 
I don't know. The last line of that story almost shouts 'The Onion.'
 

---

Posted by Steven J Hart (Member # 2340) on 12-01-2010, 08:35 AM:
 
I wonder a little about the authenticity of the "ejaculation story" especially when i noticed that the second photo down in Brad's link to the 4th amendment wear site is exactly the same as the photo accompanying the "ejaculation story"
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 12-01-2010, 08:45 AM:
 
I'm going with fake.

quote:

---

Percy Cummings, an interior designer from San Francisco

---

"Percy" ?
"Cummings"?
"Interior Designer"?
"San Francisco"?

How many clues and cliches do you need?

On the other hand, if it is real...Kismet!
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 12-01-2010, 11:16 AM:
 
fwiw: Many government agencies are exempt from the Constitution: FAA (old age 60 rule) TSA (obvious)

"Agency" or "Commission" or "Service" is usually a givaway. The IRS, in fact, was too tough so new laws were enacted 10 or 12 years ago to give taxpayers a few more rights.

Note that overseas, gnenerally the airlines themselves do the x-raying. Louis
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-01-2010, 02:46 PM:
 

quote: Louis Bornwasser

---

fwiw: Many government agencies are exempt from the Constitution: FAA (old age 60 rule) TSA (obvious)

---

quote: Steven J Hart

---

noticed that the second photo down in Brad's link to the 4th amendment wear site is exactly the same as the photo accompanying the "ejaculation story"

---

That's a stock photo for all things TSA these days, it seems. I see it everywhere. But the site is "deadseriousnews". It's not "thisisabigjokenews". So it MUST be real.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-01-2010, 03:55 PM:
 
What Steve said.
 

---

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 12-03-2010, 08:47 PM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

The 4th Amendment of the Constitution of the USA specifically prohibits the government (and the TSA is a US government agency) from Stop and Frisk and unwarranted search and seizures.

---

quote: Jim Ziegler

---

If you do not want to be searched, you don't have to go through their checkpoint.

---

quote: Jim Ziegler

---

Steve, while they may be annoying, there is no 4th Amendment or other Constitutional violation in the TSA's screening activities. Under law these are considered to be voluntary searches. By passing though their checkpoint you are giving your consent to be searched.

---

quote: Jim Ziegler

---

Checking people for weapons before boarding an aircraft is clearly reasonable, so even if there was some circumstance where the search was not voluntary, it would likely pass muster as far as the 4th Amendment is concerned.

---

quote: Jim Ziegler

---

The issue with the TSA is not a legal one

---

quote: Jim Ziegler

---

Additionally, you have no Constitutional right to fly on commercial aircraft

---

quote: Chris Slycord

---

If you refuse to go through the scanner and patdown, you aren't allowed to leave the premises, will be detained and questioned by TSA officers, and fined up to $11,000. It's not entirely voluntary when it has the threat of force behind it.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

And your Constitutional law comes from?

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

You don't loose Constitutional rights except by due-process

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

What constitutes a "reasonable" search? Normally, it requires a warrant if one is to enter into one's home or person. However, it can also be "probable cause" where a police officer or like person observes the situation that leads to search.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

If you read probable cause cases, you will find often the the decision is a balance of the "PERCEIVED" invasion of privacy versus the potential harm from the lack of search.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

The fact remains, stop and frisk is unconstitutional.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Though being on a private plane where the plane's owner/operator does not want your gun on is another issue all together. The pilot can have a gun.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Just because something is not called out in the constitution does not mean that you don't have a right to it.

---

quote: Jim Ziegler

---

You have a choice as to whether or not you are going to enter the secured area. Once you have voluntarily entered, you have consented, for the purposes of law, to the search.

---

quote: Jim Ziegler

---

Yes, you do. You can waive many rights. I.e. you have the right to remain silent, but you can waive that right by talking. You have the right to an attorney, but you can waive that right by refusing one. You have the right to a jury trial for serious offenses, but you can waive that right by requesting a bench trial - or just waive the trial altogether by pleading guilty. You have the right to not have your home searched without a warrant, but you can waive that right by consenting to a warrantless search. And, you have the right to not be patted down by a TSA agent, but you can waive that right by going through their checkpoint.

---

quote: Jim Ziegler

---

Because if it was not you would have potential terrorists trying to get contraband in and then backing out of the search if they thought they might get caught.

---

quote: Jim Ziegler

---

The potential harm from lack of search of passengers on aircraft can be found here

---

quote: Jim Ziegler

---

A police officer conducting a stop and frisk is perfectly legal as long as the guidelines in Terry v. Ohio are followed.

---

quote: Jim Ziegler

---

To suggest that the founders would have not wanted federal regulation of aviation, given the significant impact it can have on public safety, is absurd.

---

quote:

---

Here's the solution to all the controversy over full-body scanners at airports:

Have a booth that you step into that will not x-ray you, but will detonate any explosive device you may have on your body. It would be win-win for everybody [well, except any potential terrorist, that is]. There would be none of this crap about racial profiling, and it would eliminate a long and costly trial. Justice would be quick.

Just imagine it: You're in the airport terminal and you hear a muffled explosion. A few seconds later an announcement comes over the PA: "Attention standby passengers, there is now a seat open on flight 4665... Maintenance, shop vac needed at booth 4."

Sounds like win-win to me!!!

---

quote: Louis Bornwasser

---

That is why the FAA could (in the past) demand that no one over 60 could fly a commercial plane. (Recently it is raised to 65)

---

Is this actually enforced, and why? I would assume if it was a medical emergency they would waive that ruling, as I was on a plane a month ago with a woman who HAD to be in her 90s. My guess was she was being flown to a specialist for some sort of surgery, as they put her in the front row, first class seat and she had tubes for something or other hooked into her.

Still though, if the FAA is demanding that nobody over 65 fly, why can they not be intelligent and demand that nobody under 5 fly? Age can simply be determined by whether they can speak reasonably fluently, or something along those lines.
 

---

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 12-05-2010, 01:30 PM:
 
Brad, I believe the rule is referring to the age of the pilots and cockpit crew, not the passengers.

I like the solution in John Lasher's quote!!
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-05-2010, 02:46 PM:
 
Brad....was that a SNL Gilda Radnor moment? The distinction on the pilot of a COMMERCIAL plane is that the passengers are putting their lives in the hands of a stranger. It isn't a Constitutional issue other than perhaps discrimination based on age. However, the FAA can probably produce statistical evidence about issues with elderly pilots.

-Steve
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-05-2010, 04:08 PM:
 
It was me reading too fast.

That still doesn't excuse the issue of screaming babies that stare at me over the seat in front of me and slobber on my laptop.
 

---

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 12-05-2010, 06:35 PM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

One can choose to not exercise their rights but can just as quickly return to their use. i.e. you can waive your 5th amendment right answer questions...but just as quickly reinstate that right and refuse further questioning. It isn't like you've surrendered those rights for the duration.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Oops...so in this instance one can not retain their rights? Losing ones rights requires due process...I think your theory of merely walking into an airport as a voluntary waiving of one's rights is wrong.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

The amount of time wasted, the amount of "caught" items versus non makes the TSA security fall, for most, in my opinion fall outside of the reasonableness.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

In a similar case that has made it to the supreme court involving sobriety checkpoints, key points that were brought up were the number of fatalities of drunken driving, the detained time (25-seconds) and the percentage of people caught (2 out of 125). If you compare the stop and frisk at airports, you have a far longer detention, far fewer fatalities and a FAR FAR fewer caught versus frisked.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Is going to an airport to board a plane for which you bought a ticket suspicious activity?

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Regulating air travel (how the industry operates) is different from regulating the free travel of the citizens of the USA...when evaluating the government's authority as it involves the private citizen always involves that the laws fall within the constitution.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

To suggest that the founders would have tolerated the airport security check points is the absurd part...they lived through that sort of society.

---

quote:

---

t was so important that the prevention of search and seizure was in the Bill of Rights and came in at #4.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

This issue will get a ruling in the Supreme court sooner or later.

---

quote: Jim Ziegler

---

That depends on the right. For example, once you have plead guilty, it is pretty difficult to rescind that plea.

---

quote: Jim Ziegler

---

Requiring someone to complete the screening process once they have started it is reasonable because allowing people to stop mid screening would allow someone trying to smuggle a weapon or explosive to stop screening if he thinks his item is about to be found. He can then go and hide it somewhere else and try again, and again, and again until he managed to get whatever it was onto the aircraft.

---

quote: Jim Ziegler

---

So you would prefer a wild west style free for all on commercial aircraft?

---

quote: Jim Ziegler

---

First, SCOTUS upheld checkpoints as legal. Second, you're comparison is absurd on it's face.

---

You miss the point...the level of inconvenience versus the potential for harm. How many people are being screening in air travel versus driving? What is the average wait time for the average driver due to sobriety check points versus TSA check points? What are the percentage of people found drunk (versus checked) compared to people potentially causing planes/buildings to fall out of the sky or being rerouted (skyjacking)?

The concept you are missing is that there is NO difference between ones liberty to take a plane, bus, car or walk. The method of moving about is not specifically excluded in the constitution.

In a TSA screening, one is indeed RANDOMLY searched...no reasonable suspicion.

We will see just how far it goes in the courts...I'm still betting on the Supreme Court.

It does, however, appear that you and I will not find much common ground and the substance of our discussions will not be much different than they have been. I will, therefore bow out of continuing the same discussion of the same points.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-05-2010, 08:37 PM:
 
John Lasher's quote is not feasible. I've been hearing that a lot around the internet. If it were even possible, it would only stop explosive things (or somebody wearing a particular ointment or whatnot). It would not stop things like paper clips or a 16th ounce of water that can be used to take over a plane.
 

---

Posted by John Lasher (Member # 968) on 12-05-2010, 09:41 PM:
 
I have a better suggestion. Every commercial airliner has an indestructible black box (which is actually orange) carrying the flight data and cockpit voice recorders. Why not just make the whole plane out of the same material?
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-05-2010, 10:10 PM:
 
Let's just be patient. Pretty soon the terrorists are going to cause a serious problem not airplane-related, and then the focus and hysteria will shift to the theme parks, stadiums, malls or wherever the problem happens.

Oh wait, no shift will happen. The airports will still get the same hysteria; the government will just write a check for a couple of hundred billion to expand the TSA to cover whatever kind of venue the new problem happens in.

I think I'll create an account on E*trade and buy some stock in the company that makes the body scanners.
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 12-11-2010, 12:03 PM:
 
I get to fly to Albuquerque (KABQ) with a three-hour layover in Phoenix (KPHX) this Sunday. I've always wondered if I'd get stopped and frisked while traveling in AZ since I can pass for a person of either hispanic or middle eastern origin (I'm neither). Now I get to mill around in the Phoenix Skyharbor airport for three hours with both the TSA and the AZ cops to possibly deal with...
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-11-2010, 06:51 PM:
 
Do you have to go through security again when you have that layover nonsense? I've only ever had direct flights anywhere I've ever gone and will only ever travel on a direct connection... way too much to go wrong on multiple planes, it's hard enough for your stuff to make it where you're going as it is. Now connecting flights and layovers seem to be all the trend. Planes are now like buses with transfer slips.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-12-2010, 12:08 AM:
 
You only have to go through security again when you miss your connecting flight and are stuck in a strange city overnight.
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 12-12-2010, 07:59 AM:
 
Last January my wife & I travelled to Southeast Asia. When we arrived in Tokyo on both the departing and returning flights we were required to go through security again, even though we never left the secure area of the airport. This was the drill for connecting flights to other countries. Interestingly, a small bottle of fish sauce that I purchased in Vietnam, and had carried onto other flights, was confiscated in Tokyo.
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 12-12-2010, 04:03 PM:
 
As Brad mentioned, usually you only have to go through security if you're coming in from an unsecured area (like leaving the airport for an overnight stay).

LAX is the worst for this - if your connecting flights are using different terminals you'll be going through security again during the layover. My recent trips LAS-LAX-SEA and PDX-LAX-LAS are examples - AAL uses a different terminal than AS even though they code-share on these trips. So you get to do the TSA dance four times on that round-trip.

Posted from gate B18 at PHX waiting for US to wisk me to ABQ on a pretend-a-jet CR900. US was oversold this morning on the flight from LAS using an A319 - I volunteered to take a later flight (with an offer of a nice cash bribe), but then they made some room by upgrading me to first class (first time I've ever flown as a pax that way - it pays to dress nicely when flying). Of course the best seat in the house is still the left front...
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-20-2011, 07:22 PM:
 
This pdf file turned up today online. Good reading.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 02-20-2011, 08:03 PM:
 
The problem on aircraft is "the imbalance of power" caused by none of us being armed. (bad guys win.)

If ALL of us were armed, then the bad guys would be outnumbered.

btw: I did security 5 times in Paris on a connector.(The last time was on the jet-way. Louis
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-13-2011, 11:54 PM:
 
Texas Kicks Ass

quote:

---

Texas House bans 'offensive' security pat-downs
AUSTIN, TX -- The Texas House passed a bill that would make it a criminal offense for public servants to inappropriately touch travelers during airport security pat-downs.

Approved late Thursday night, the measure makes it illegal for anyone conducting searches to touch "the anus, sexual organ, buttocks, or breast of another person" including through clothing.

It also prohibits searches "that would be offensive to a reasonable person."

The bill's chief sponsor is Republican Rep. David Simpson, who said, "this has to do with dignity and travel, and prohibiting indecent, groping searches."

He believes it will keep Transportation Security Administration officials from treating travelers like criminals, though the measure may be superseded by federal law.

After a brief but raucous debate, lawmakers approved the measure with little opposition -- drawing applause from supporters.

(Copyright ©2011 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

---

quote:

---

Baby's First TSA Patdown
Posted by samzenpus on Friday May 13, @10:52AM
from the I-feel-safer-already dept.
theodp writes:

"Is there anything cuter than baby milestones? Baby's first steps. Baby's first word. And now, baby's first TSA patdown. 'Well,' writes Anna North, 'it finally happened. Airport security officers gave a pat-down to a baby.' A post on the TSA blog defended the move: 'The child's stroller alarmed during explosives screening. Our officers followed proper current screening procedures by screening the family after the alarm...The [8-month-old] child in the photo was simply receiving a modified pat-down.' Hey, at least they didn't make a federal case of the 4 oz. of liquid found in the little tyke's Pampers."

---

quote: Randy Stankey

---

If you tell everybody to line up, drop their drawers and grab their ankles, of course, people are going to get upset! But, if you can get people to think that they are helping you keep the airports secure, they are more likely to understand.

---

But Randy that has no bearing here. TSA clearly believes the population are morons. Granted most of them are, but they are NOT doing anything to help keep the airports secure. In essence all they are doing is taking away all forms of defense from the good guys who will play by the rules and pretend the bad guys won't smuggle their weapons in up a baby's ass (or their own).

TSA will steal someone's harmless fingernail clippers, yet permit them to carry their KEYS onto the plane. That key is a perfectly suitable weapon, particularly when it is on a ring with other keys. Grab your keys in the palm of your hand, take the two nastiest keys and set them to protrude between your first 3 fingers as you make a fist and then start throwing punches at people. Duh!

Not that it matters too much. Just yesterday I dropped off a friend at the airport and had warned him before he left that they would confiscate his deadly long metal fingernail file with a very sharp point on the end, as well as a pair of scissors. He said I didn't know what I was talking about that "they have never taken those items away from him when he travels". He texted me from the airport saying he walked right through with them.

Want to smuggle in a weapon? Its EASY! For example at those rotating exit doors into the non-secure areas of the airport (baggage claim) stand by the door, reach down to tie your shoes, drop your gun from inside your pants leg onto the floor and gently kick it inside the rotating door. The action of you standing up as you kick it in will attract anyone's eyes who happens to glance over, not a small item you have gently kicked into the door. Meanwhile your terrorist buddy is on the other side of the door and grabs it from the secure area of the airport and carries it onto the plane. Am I the only person who sees these MAJOR loopholes? Come on, I'm not even trying to look for ways to get weapons on a plane. They are so damn obvious it makes me angry.

But the best of all...in first class they actually serve REAL KNIVES with their dinners. Problem solved...just fly first class and let the airline GIVE you the weapon!

All this money they are WASTING on the TSA project could have been placed into funding to install a "terrorist button" on each plane, that upon being pressed locally or remotely would remove ALL CONTROL from the plane and force it to land at the nearest airport on auto pilot.

Fucking morons. They have no comprehension of logic or how to effectively do their jobs.
 

---

Posted by David E. Nedrow (Member # 4981) on 05-14-2011, 01:46 PM:
 
First, we've already had an "ass bomber" who attempted to assassinate a Saudi prince using a bomb inserted into his rectum. Here's a CBS report after the incident.

Ass-assination

Second, re: the ludicrous pat down stuff, alarmist Chuck Schumer is introducing legislation that would require the same stupid procedures for trains, including "no-ride" lists. This because there was a mention of trains in materials pulled from Bin Laden's home.

A no-ride list for Amtrak?

As many people have noted, a train is nothing like a plane. You don't need to be on a train to kill people in it. And, it can't be hijacked and driven willy-nilly around the landscape.

How long before we have to have pat downs in order to drive a car through tunnels?
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-14-2011, 02:24 PM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

TSA will steal someone's harmless fingernail clippers, yet permit them to carry their KEYS onto the plane.

---

quote:

---

Want to smuggle in a weapon? Its EASY!

---

quote: Randy Stankey

---

You could convince people to eat a shit sandwich and like it if you went about it the right way.

---

quote: Randy Stankey

---

Besides, your mind is already made up. Regardless of what I say, you have already decided to resist. It makes no difference what I say.

---

quote: John Wilson

---

It's all bullshit.

---

quote: David M. Leugers

---

It seems so hard for us to separate love of country from belief and trust in government. I know it was very hard for me.

---

quote: Randy Stankey

---

We are all here, today, because our forefathers loved their country and distrusted their government. We even have a Constitution because we distrust our government. Love of country and distrust of government are not counter to each other. They go hand in hand.

---

I couldn't agree more Randy. The Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) were specifically put into the Constitution to protect us from an over reaching federal government. Sadly, since 911 the federal government has tossed aside our rights in the guise of protecting us. This is the same group who, if they were not involved in 911, were at least grossly incompetent beyond belief... Indiana Supreme Court just threw out the 4th amendment by ruling the police do not need a search warrant. Citizens are not allowed to resist, and if they do not like what was done by the police, they can protest it later (yeah right).
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 05-24-2011, 01:20 AM:
 
Back to the TSA, for the last two weeks in a row, the fucking jackoff TSA assclowns at LAS have cut the TSA-approved locks off of my Pelican toolbox. Three locks in two weeks. At about $14.00 USD a lock I'm beginning to get a little pissed. I mean, "What The Fuck?" LAS TSA, WTF?
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-24-2011, 07:32 AM:
 
Sounds, to me, like it's time for you to ship a suitcase stuffed full of loose ping pong balls mixed with Styrofoam packing peanuts.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 05-24-2011, 09:47 AM:
 
Paul: you're an ex airline guy, right? I think you need to ask for the card of a supervisor. TSA should reimburse you for your out-of-pocket. Turn it around; have fun! Louis
 

---

Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 07-16-2011, 03:38 PM:
 
Want to tell the TSA what you think? Try out these beauties!! Cool clothing...
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-16-2011, 11:01 PM:
 
Those are sooo cool. I'd also like to see them create a pair of men's shorts with one of those universal DON'T symbols (the circle with a line thru it) and in the circle a picture of a penis....a HUGE penis and a set of big hairy bull balls and under it the words, "Don't touch my junk, perverts." It's a little less intellectual than the ammendment and more New Yorker.

Paul, do you mean to tell me they won't let you just unlock the locks for them? They cut them off instead? WTF is right. Randy has the right idea.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 07-16-2011, 11:27 PM:
 
It's not illegal to ship ping pong balls by airplane. The packing peanuts are to protect the ping pong balls from damage in shipment. Right?

Number every ping pong ball with indelible ink. Then, after the case is opened, demand that every last ping pong ball be inventoried and accounted for.

Nobody needs to know that you have a secret ping pong ball fetish.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-17-2011, 12:41 AM:
 
While it's fun to think up pranks like this, it's probably not a good idea to piss off the TSA people. The guy who said "If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested" deserved any trouble he got. Is he such an egotist that he thinks a TSA guy is getting a turn-on by accidentally brushing his ball sack? He should have just cooperated and then he'd have gone on his trip and been fine.

The way to deal with the TSA idiocy is by writing your congressmen and getting other people to write. (And promise to not contribute to their re-election campaigns.) Doing stupid pranks on the TSA people will just get you yelled at or "detained" and who needs that?
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-17-2011, 01:10 AM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

While it's fun to think up pranks like this, it's probably not a good idea to piss off the TSA people.

---

quote: Jeff Kane

---

The UK one was the most serious. I was travelling a *lot* at that point and had been to the UK for quite a few short trips over a three month period in 2004. This, apparently, triggered something as I got the full on interrogation, luggage search, background check, the works. Four hours in a side room down some dank hallway in Heathrow. Multiple officers, LOTS of questions about my travel patterns, and a warning that I should expect future scrutiny in the future. Knowing better than to argue, I simply said "ok", and went on my way. Been to the UK at least 15 times since then, never had an issue.

---

quote:

---

TSA Agent Caught With Passenger's iPad in His Pants; Allegedly Took $50,000 in Other Goods, Cops Say
By Matthew Hendley Fri., Jul. 8 2011 at 3:24 PM

While most Transportation Security Administration employees are busy groping people or taking naked pictures of them, the cops say one of those employees was putting fliers' electronics down his pants.

The Broward Sheriff's Office says 30-year-old Nelson Santiago stole around $50,000 worth of electronics over the past six months from Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport's Terminal 1.

Santiago -- a TSA officer since 2009 -- was caught earlier this week by a Continental Airlines employee taking an iPad out of someone's luggage and stuffing it into his pants, the cops say.

After being arrested Monday on two counts of grand theft, police say Santiago admitted to stealing computers, GPS devices, video cameras, and other electronic merchandise from luggage he was supposed to be screening.

The cops say Santiago would immediately take pictures of his new goods and upload the photos online to sell the stuff.

Santiago would typically sell the stolen goods to people before his shift was even over, police say.

BSO detectives estimate that Santiago's haul totaled $50,000 over the past six months.

The cops are looking for people whose stuff has been stolen, although they say the chances of getting the stuff back are slim.

Santiago was released from jail on bond, although police say more charges against him are pending. According to police, Santiago no longer works with the TSA.

---

quote:

---

TSA Agent Grabs Rick Case's Pen, Faces Grand Theft Charges
By Stefan Kamph Fri., Jul. 22 2011 at 10:19 AM

Toussain Puddie used to work as a TSA security screener at Terminal 1 of Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport -- until he told police last month that he had taken home a pen belonging to local car dealership owner Rick Case. Case decided to press charges, despite Puddie's cooperation in returning the pen.

According to police, Case was preparing to board a Frontier Airlines flight out of Fort Lauderdale on June 5 when he and his wife were selected for special TSA screening. Case removed his $450 black-and-white Montblanc pen from his pocket and placed it in a basket. His wife carried the family cat through the x-ray machine.

Case didn't realize that he forgot the pen at the TSA checkpoint. His daugher Raquel called BSO the following day to report the pen stolen. She told BSO deputies that Case thought he had left the pen at the checkpoint.

A deputy responded to the checkpoint but didn't find anything. Puddie, a 30-year-old TSA employee, says he had seen the pen on top of a filing cabinet and, not knowing it was anything but a stray pen someone had left, took it home.

"I didn't think the pen was worth more than ten bucks," says Puddie.

It wasn't until a few weeks later, on June 22, when he realized the gravity of his action. Police talked with TSA employees, conducting an investigation. Puddie was called into the BSO office at the airport.

"The police told me all he wanted was his pen back," Puddie recalls. He says that he told police he had the pen and that a deputy then drove him to his home, where he retrieved the pen, and drove him back to the airport.

Then he says deputies told him to sit down and wait. When a deputy returned, Puddie says, "He told me that the owner wanted to press charges."

Puddie had worked at the TSA since April 2009 but was fired after being arrested. The BSO arrest report says Puddie confessed to taking the pen after he was read his Miranda rights.

Puddie says he didn't initially tell anyone he had the pen because "I didn't want to get in trouble."

He spent about 30 hours in jail and was released. He faces grand theft charges. According to police, "The defendant did temporarily or permanently deprive the victim of a right or benefit to his property."

What motivated the two-week hunt for Rick Case's pen? It might be standard procedure, but perhaps BSO is on high alert for TSA thefts after our story of an iPad disappearing down a screener's pants.

---

 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 07-24-2011, 05:38 PM:
 
My pen! My pen! My pen is missing!
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-24-2011, 06:26 PM:
 
Was this what you were referring to?
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-24-2011, 07:04 PM:
 
You touch my pen, dude, and I'll have you arrested.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-25-2011, 02:32 PM:
 
I didn't think I'd ever find myself saying this, but I'm kind of on the TSA guy's side over the pen episode. You would need to be a real pen buff to notice the difference between a $20 pen and one worth several hundred, I guess (in the same way that, say, you would need to be a hifi nerd to tell the difference between a $20 turntable cartridge and a $2,000 one just by looking at them), and the fact that the owner forgot to collect it on the other side of the x-ray suggests that he is wealthy enough for its loss not to be a big hardship. Furthermore, the TSA man came clean as soon as he was told that there was an issue, and so there was clearly no intention to deprive the owner of a valuable item of it permanently. If he'd said nothing the chances are that he'd have got away with it. I bet they get a bucket load of $10-20 pens abandoned at the checkpoint every day. He probably just grabbed it to fill in some form or other, put it in his pocket afterwards and the rest was history.

The iPad down the pants incident, on the other hand, was not only intentional theft pure and simple, but sounds very uncomfortable to boot.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 07-25-2011, 04:14 PM:
 
First, the guy is not qualified to tell the difference between a $500 and a 50¢ pen. He's a security guard not an appraiser.

Second, regardless of whether it was worth $5,000,000 or 5¢, he should not have taken that pen. It doesn't matter whether he actually stole the pen or whether he found it on the floor. His job is to protect people and their belongings. If he finds an item lost in his work area, his job is to put it into Lost and Found, not his pocket.

The guy didn't do his job. He didn't do it the way he should have. If he doesn't do his job, he shouldn't be allowed to do it.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-25-2011, 05:56 PM:
 
Maybe it was somewhat innocent, but the guy pressing charges over such a thing will perhaps deter other TSA agents from having sticky fingers.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-25-2011, 09:33 PM:
 
Gee...what would be so hard for the TSA to have a lost-n-found...it would take care of such things. I'm sure loads of people accidentally leave stuff behind. That does not mean the TSA person can go shopping on what is left behind.

There should be a firm TSA policy on how long they will hold stuff in a Lost and Found and then it is to be donated to charity or some such thing.

-Steve
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-25-2011, 10:54 PM:
 
I lost a set of car keys somewhere between Billings and Salt Lake City a couple of years ago....I'm sure I left it in the airport on one end of the trip or the other. We called the airports in both towns, described the keys but they never showed up. On the other hand, the car did not get stolen from the airport parking lot so I guess at least the Billings TSA folks are innocent on this one!
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 07-25-2011, 11:35 PM:
 
My college job was a security guard in a hotel. We had a Lost & Found officer responsible for keeping track of such things.

In fact, there are laws requiring hotels to keep records of all lost items valued over a certain amount. (Like $5.00 or something stupid like that.) Items worth less than $100.00 had to be kept for 30 days until they were disposed of. Items worth more than $100.00 had to be kept for 90 days. For items of "extraordinary value" (no specific amount but we assume it to be large sums of money, etc.) a police report had to be filled out.

A "trained" security guard, regardless of the venue, should have some training in lost and found procedures even if there is no specific "Lost & Found" department.

Even if the guy wasn't specifically trained on lost and found, it is reasonable to assume that the owner of a "fancy pen" might come back looking for it. Why not just put it into a pencil cup or a desk drawer somewhere?

Regardless of what you think the value of the pen might be or how valuable the pen seems to be, or whether you think the pen was stolen or merely "misplaced" the guy went outside the scope of his job when he took it.
 

---

Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 07-26-2011, 09:54 AM:
 
In San Francisco, Kansas City, and a number of regional airports, TSA screeners are not Federal employees at all. The work is farmed out to private security firms.

List of private firms is here
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-30-2011, 06:49 AM:
 

quote: Randy Stankey

---

Regardless of what you think the value of the pen might be or how valuable the pen seems to be, or whether you think the pen was stolen or merely "misplaced" the guy went outside the scope of his job when he took it.

---

Agreed completely, and I wasn't trying to suggest that he shouldn't have faced any consequences at all, only that criminal charges are possibly a bit disproportionate.

Anyway, if you think the US TSA is bad, be thankful you don't have to put up with the Chinese one. I was chatting with someone who has just got back from there yesterday. In front of them at the airport security queue in Shanghai was a mum, dad and baby. As they approached the checkpoint, the security officer demanded that the mother hand over the baby, which he then placed in a tray (of the sort you put your laptop, bag in etc.) and put him/her straight through the hand baggage x-ray machine!

If I ever have kids, remind me not to take them to China until they've grown to the size at which this is no longer an option...
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 08-03-2011, 09:15 PM:
 
Locally produced video by the "Singing Sons of Beaches" for TSA screenings at the Glacier National Park Airport (KFCA) in Kalispell, MT:

Clickable thingy
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-12-2012, 01:27 AM:
 
I haven't complained about the most useless people in the world for awhile now.


 

---

Posted by Martin Murray (Member # 162) on 03-12-2012, 03:09 PM:
 
TSA is government job creation at its best
 

---

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 03-12-2012, 06:49 PM:
 
It's all about the PERCEPTION to the average moron that they're more secure.
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 03-12-2012, 08:01 PM:
 
I hope we all remember how the whole country freaked out. The outsourced security were all fired and replaced by Bush/Cheney.

I'm not at all sure the TSA are any better than what we had in place already. It's hard to prove a negative.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-16-2012, 02:06 AM:
 
TSA required viewing.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-16-2012, 04:31 AM:
 
That was awesome.

Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle

---

'Scuse me sir, just need to check inside yer ass hole.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

They won't be making real progress until they can get it to where we can keep our shoes and belts on.

---

quote: Chris Slycord

---

Who's claimed that moving from x-ray backscatter based units to millimeter wave was over privacy?

---

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.

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

...state-of-the-art airport perimeter fence...

---

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.

---

quote: Stephen Furley

---

Why on earth would a bomb be the first thing you would think of?

---

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.

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

That is shocking. What does that make the "good experience" score now? 94,148,643,548,763,441,879 to 1?

---

And big, monolithic organisations being what they are, the one will probably decide that she's had enough and quit before she's had time to exert a lasting, positive influence on the other 94,148,643,548,763,441,879. Sigh.

I was as astonished as you'd have been. The moment they decided to pull me into a side office for a secondary check, I thought, 'That's it - I'm buggered', and resigned myself to spending the night in Seattle, given that the flight I was trying to catch was the last one to Ontario that evening. Her decision to exercise common sense, and to persuade her boss to do so as well, restored my faith in humanity at the end of a 30-hour day of aviation hell.
 

---

Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 03-29-2013, 01:52 PM:
 
First off I think the TSA is WAY more of a "feel good" than an actual good doing organization.

That being said the three thine Iv had to go through TSA screenings (Two in Charleston one at LGA) Iv had a painless experience and none took more than about 10 min. They were helpful and polite with me getting my items in and out the bins. I know this is however not the norm...
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-29-2013, 02:33 PM:
 
In the past few years either my wife or I (or both) have been through the airports in Billings MT, Orlando, Salt Lake City, Boise, Seattle, Sacramento, Denver, Minneapolis and Kalispell MT. I would have to say that the TSA people we've encountered have been friendly for the most part.

While I agree that the agency is largely for "security theater," I'm inclined to give them a break. They have to process a ton of people as fast as possible, and think about it: It's gotta be one of the most boring, yet stressful, jobs there is, and it's a completely thankless job. I do think a lot of people mistake a "businesslike" and/or "in a hurry" attitude for rudeness. In my experience if you cooperate, keep moving, and don't cause a stupid ruckus, you're fine.

It would be interesting to hear the other side of the story in some of these cases where people were offended or whatever by TSA agents.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-30-2013, 12:25 PM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

I do think a lot of people mistake a "businesslike" and/or "in a hurry" attitude for rudeness. In my experience if you cooperate, keep moving, and don't cause a stupid ruckus, you're fine.

---

quote: Robert E. Allen

---

As a former police officer and security officer I can tell you those folks are only doing what they are told.

---