Brontoforumus Archive
Discussion Boards => Thaddeus Boyd's Panel of Death => Topic started by: Thad on November 17, 2010, 03:31:23 PM
-
So uh apparently the TSA now gives you the choice between being groped and being subjected to a full-body scan. If they have a full-body scanner.
Boingboing (http://boingboing.net)'s all over this, but here are some highlights:
Blogger is subjected to the invasive "pat-down" procedure without first being informed of what it entails; that would be sexual assault (http://www.ourlittlechatterboxes.com/2010/11/tsa-sexual-assault.html).
WSJ op-ed (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704658204575611031585381708.html) points out that these things are potentially dangerous and aren't really going to do anything to make us safer.
Oh, and when the TSA claims it's not storing or redistributing the images? It is, of course, lying. (http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html)
-
The best part of that whole have been the "This fine goes to 11!" jokes.
See, they were going to fine him $10,000 for leaving the security area (read: for making them look stupid on national and international media), but then the head of the TSA put out a statement that said "Well that was the old fine! The new one is $11,000!"
I'll see if I can find the source for that one. It's pretty funny.
-
So uhh how about that Fourth Amendment guys
-
Ah here we go: This fine goes to 11 (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/nov/15/tsa-probe-scan-resistor/)
-
Blogger is subjected to the invasive "pat-down" procedure without first being informed of what it entails; that would be sexual assault (http://www.ourlittlechatterboxes.com/2010/11/tsa-sexual-assault.html).
It's funny how "vaginal area" sounds medical, but "vagina area" sounds like you're twelve.
-
More via BoingBoing:
Cancer surviving flight attendant forced to remove prosthetic breast during pat-down (http://www.wbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13534628)
ASU prof analyzes radiation exposure from Rapiscans. (http://www.boingboing.net/2010/11/19/odds-of-cancer-from.html) The good news is that the odds of it giving you cancer is only about 1 in 30 million. Of course, that's roughly equivalent to the odds of dying because a terrorist hijacked your plane, so he notes that there's no benefit in using them. Scientists at UCSF, on the other hand, point out that the odds may be worse for children, HIV sufferers, and other population outliers.
And RedState (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/11/18/another-tsa-outrage/), so consider the source, but it sounds plausible given all the other ridiculous shit the TSA's done over the years: soldiers have their nail clippers and multitools confiscated, despite being allowed to carry guns on the plane.
-
Why is anyone allowed to carry
explosives combustion powered weapons on an aircraft? In what possible scenario would the benefit outweigh the risk???
We have incapacitating arms that fire on compressed air, don't we?
-
The good news is that the odds of it giving you cancer is only about 1 in 30 million.
I wonder how many people get scanned by these things a year?
-
Why is anyone allowed to carry explosives combustion powered weapons on an aircraft? In what possible scenario would the benefit outweigh the risk???
We have incapacitating arms that fire on compressed air, don't we?
Really, it doesn't matter what method is used to fire a projectile that might penetrate the fuselage.
-
I didn't know we made compressed air powered things that were that powerful. Presumably you use compressed air because it is less powerful.
...
...
Nevermind, I'd forgotten that Golgo-13 level where you use a harpoon gun. So there is actually a use for high-powered compressed air weapons.
-
Why is anyone allowed to carry explosives combustion powered weapons on an aircraft? In what possible scenario would the benefit outweigh the risk???
We have incapacitating arms that fire on compressed air, don't we?
Really, it doesn't matter what method is used to fire a projectile that might penetrate the fuselage.
Does that include rock salt or rubber bullets?
-
I would expect both to only be an issue at extremely short range, although in an aircraft it's pretty much just point blank and sucking on the barrel.
-
In the specific case I mentioned, the soldiers had their guns with them purely for the purpose of transporting them. They didn't have bullets.
I have, however, heard that air marshals are allowed to carry guns, and you're right, that could be pretty potentially dangerous. Less so than a bomb going off or the plane being hijacked, though.
-
Well, that's a mild relief I guess?
My guts say that the amount of oomph a "non-lethal" projectile gets from powder is going to surpass the give of the interior plastics of the cabin. Not that my gut should be at all trusted on such matters.
-
You shouldn't since the only thing that matters is puncturing the aluminum hull. If someone's waving a weapon around next to the avionics, you're probably already screwed.
-
Bruce Schneier on Security (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/11/tsa_backscatter.html); a useful roundup of quotes and links, including an ACLU rundown of your rights and options (http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/know-your-options-airport).
-
In the specific case I mentioned, the soldiers had their guns with them purely for the purpose of transporting them. They didn't have bullets.
I have, however, heard that air marshals are allowed to carry guns, and you're right, that could be pretty potentially dangerous. Less so than a bomb going off or the plane being hijacked, though.
Modern hollowpoints are pretty good about doing what they're designed for and just bouncing around inside the fleshy thing they're shot into, too, or at least coming out with substantially less force.
-
If someone's waving a weapon around next to the avionics, you're probably already screwed.
Nah. Avionics are made with massive amounts of redundancy, so nobody's going to accidentally shoot out of the mission critical systems unless they're specifically aiming for all of them.
As for shooting out the hull, I just asked my air marshal uncle and the answers are: yes, they do carry guns, and yes, you can kill everyone on board if you fire it wrong. They have to go through special training to learn how to not do that.
So who else is flying out to see their families this Christmas?
-
I was under the impression that Air Marshals used special bullets that were essentially plastic flechette, for the very reason that it can't penetrate the hull?
-
So who else is flying out to see their families this Christmas?
Well, my brother might be flying to see us... I ought to forward him that list of ACLU suggestions.
Funny story, he's wanted in the state of Washington for speeding, and also for missing his court date.
-
Well, at least these new, more invasive security measures are created new business opportunities. Behold: the Flying Pasties (NSFW) (http://www.flyingpasties.com/). Not only do they make your genitals and nipples invisible to airport scanners, but they also miraculously squeeze your tits together somehow.
-
Well, at least these new, more invasive security measures are created new business opportunities.
Especially for Michael Chertoff.
Er, is there any truth to the persistent comments that Rapiscan is a client of his? Because a Google search turns up a hell of a lot of freaky-looking conspiracy sites.
-
I was under the impression that Air Marshals used special bullets that were essentially plastic flechette, for the very reason that it can't penetrate the hull?
its called a frangible bullet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaser_Safety_Slug)
although that article says they are currently using regular hollow-points
-
A lot cheaper, I'm sure.
-
The episode of mythbusters on that basically showed that an aircraft wouldn't explode from decompression. In fact, as I understand it, it's the only test ever done on the matter and FAA took great interest in their findings and methodology. Not that you necessarily want to risk shooting through terrorists into baby, nor is it good to take out part of a triple redundant system even if it is triple redundant.
-
its called a frangible bullet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaser_Safety_Slug)
Only if we're letting Lewis Carroll name out ammunition.
-
Rapiscan
I was commenting on this to someone last night. Who the fuck names their nude picture generator Rapey-scan?
-
I was commenting on this to someone last night.
You, Colbert, and everybody else.
-
They blow up planes all the time for safety tests. I guess it's difficult to do that at high altitude and difficult to recover debris from.
-
Dave Barry has a blurry groin. (http://www.npr.org/2010/11/15/131338172/humorist-dave-barry-and-the-tsa)
I do think - and this is not an original observation - you see a lot of - I do - a lot of elderly ladies being pulled aside for one issue or another. And I suppose terrorists could use an elderly lady to attack a plane. I just don't think they ever have. It just seems like it'd make more sense to focus your efforts on things that are more likely to actually happen.
-
TSA groping leaves bladder cancer survivor soaked in his own urine, humiliated. (http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2010/11/20/tsa-pat-down-leaves-bladder-cancer-survivor-covered-in-urine/)
This is what we've become, folks.
-
speak for yourself
-
Oh boy. I can't wait until a transgender person has to suffer through that kind of humiliation.
-
I still think nobody's going to do anything about it. A year from now TSA will continue grabbing balls, exposing travellers to x-rays and strip-searching children. Nobody will make them stop, and if it gets close, there'll be a foiled minor terrorist attack and everyone will line up for groin-grabbing again.
-
You're assuming that either (1) nobody's going to sue over it or (2) if they do, the courts will uphold it. I don't think either one of those is a reasonable bet.
Besides that, there's the issue that the airline industry is already in trouble and this is one more reason for people not to fly.
There are other things to consider too: some airports are already looking at hiring private firms instead of the TSA, and this is also a pretty strong issue for the Republicans to take on once they realize, oh yeah, the public's never going to think we're softer on terrorists than Democrats no matter WHAT we do.
-
The airline industry really turned itself around this year, but yeah, not very happy about the mass groping.
-
Even up here, I'm already hearing the rumblings about various 4th amendment challenges to the TSA.
Once in a while, that constitution of yours actually works.
-
Gizmodo (http://gizmodo.com/5696160/why-the-tsa-could-lead-us-to-public-rebellion-or-a-terrorist-attack) puts a sensationalistic headline on a good article, in which a former assistant chief of police describes being frequently singled out for search, as well as one particular ineffective search that, she believes, was intended as punishment for asking questions.
Given that TSA interacts with tens if not hundreds of millions of travelers each year, it is incredible to me that we, the stewards of homeland security, have failed to insist that data capturing and analysis should occur in a manner similar to what local police agencies have been doing for many years.
Some might argue that the potential for intrusion is not the same between police and TSA. I believe my experience this past weekend demonstrates otherwise. Currently, there is no way to know whether a certain male screener routinely identifies predominantly women for additional screening. There is no way to identify whether a Latino screener routinely isolates African-Americans, or vice versa. To assert that the screeners are highly trained and do not engaged in this type of discrimination, whether passive or active, is unsupportable because there is no data. You simply cannot solve problems that you do not want to identify.
-
Seems like Canada's trying to one-up the USA in the touchy-feely department:
EightFifteen-year-olds, dude. (http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/11/24/16298216.html)
-
Boy that Indian ambassador (http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2010/12/india-diplomat-gets-humiliating-pat-down-at-mississippi-airport-/134197/5?csp=outbrain&csp=obnetwork) sure looks like she could be a threat.
Their clothes are different from my clothes! Look at what they're wearing!
-
Boy that Indian ambassador (http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2010/12/india-diplomat-gets-humiliating-pat-down-at-mississippi-airport-/134197/5?csp=outbrain&csp=obnetwork) sure looks like she could be a threat.
Their clothes are different from my clothes! Look at what they're wearing!
Whatever happened to Diplomatic Immunity?
-
I love how so much of this giant debate is fueled by people being too prudish to have a stranger who doesn't care see their naked body for 5 seconds.
-
And keep those pictures around forever. And the fact that it's involuntary. And you'd think that being around these boards as long as people have, the problems this presents for pre-op transgenders should be pretty apparent.
Really has nothing to do with prudishness.
-
Oh wow, a single-sentence strawman post by Drethelin in Real World. Sure didn't see THAT coming.
Hey Dreth, if you want to contribute something to this discussion, see if you can produce a single positive thing about the new TSA procedures. Or, hell, any of the new TSA procedures implemented in the past decade.
Just kidding. I know you don't want to contribute anything to the discussion.
-
hey thad go fuck yourself with the business end of a rake.
I actually think if Americans become less hung up on nudity and the human body it will be a positive thing, but that's not going to happen and certainly wouldn't be intentional.
Transgender folks are a special case, but apart from special cases like that and that of pilots that have to get radiated multiple times a day every day, I don't feel any worse about backscatter than I do about the entire largely pointless security rigmarole. The groping is ridiculous but it's also optional. I guess I'd be happy if this was the last straw in dismantling something that is wasteful of everyone's money and especially time on a national scale, but I don't view it as a bigger deal than say, the fact that you can't take liquids onto an airplane.
-
hey thad go fuck yourself with the business end of a rake.
Why, you want the government to take pictures?
I actually think if Americans become less hung up on nudity and the human body it will be a positive thing
I do too; the only problem is that it has fuck-all to do with whether it's okay for the government to take and permanently store nude pictures of people who it has no reason to suspect of illegal behavior.
The groping is ridiculous but it's also optional.
In theory. This thread's got multiple examples of occasions when people weren't given the option.
I guess I'd be happy if this was the last straw in dismantling something that is wasteful of everyone's money and especially time on a national scale, but I don't view it as a bigger deal than say, the fact that you can't take liquids onto an airplane.
As far as convenience, it's less of an impairment than making me buy mini-bottles of everything before I get on a plane. As far as Fourth Amendment violations, on the other hand, a full-body scan that is then held on-file for God knows how long and distributed to God knows who is (in most cases) a bigger invasion of privacy than looking through a suitcase.
-
And that's not even counting the technical problems, like the part where the backscatter machines wouldn't have caught the underwear bomber, can't detect anything in body cavities, and the odds of getting cancer from a backscatter machine, while small, is double the odds of actually being killed by a terrorist.
-
Yes, but if the machines worked, they'd further decrease your chances of being killed by a terrorist, and then the relative chance of getting cancer would be even higher.
-
So... I've always kind of likened these airport security measures to the Duck and Cover program. Did I get that idea from here? Is it ubiquitous to the point where no one person can really claim the idea?
-
I thought you were making the comparison to show just how ineffectual each are.
-
The groping is ridiculous but it's also optional.
In theory. This thread's got multiple examples of occasions when people weren't given the option.
To add: it's only optional if the terminal HAS one of the scanners. Terminal 2 at Sky Harbor doesn't; my grandmother got groped there last week.
Meanwhile, there've been multiple reports about how easy it is to fool the scanners (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20025695-71.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20).
Oh, and according to ABC (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/loaded-gun-slips-past-tsa-screeners/story?id=12412458\), a Persian guy got through security with a loaded Glock the other month. So, you know, that's cool.
-
Meanwhile, none of the organizations the TSA claims are maintaining the scanners have anything to do with them! (http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/23/tsa-has-no-regular-t.html)
-
Reposted without immediate comment:
from: http://www.news10.net/news/article.aspx?storyid=113529&provider=top&catid=188 (http://www.news10.net/news/article.aspx?storyid=113529&provider=top&catid=188)
SACRAMENTO, CA - An airline pilot is being disciplined by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for posting video on YouTube pointing out what he believes are serious flaws in airport security.
...
Three days after he posted a series of six video clips recorded with a cell phone camera at San Francisco International Airport, four federal air marshals and two sheriff's deputies arrived at his house to confiscate his federally-issued firearm. The pilot recorded that event as well and provided all the video to News10.
At the same time as the federal marshals took the pilot's gun, a deputy sheriff asked him to surrender his state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon.
-
Whistleblowers getting shat on?
-
Man arrested for being brown and having diarrhea; woman, other man arrested for being brown and sitting next to man who was brown and had diarrhea. (http://detnews.com/article/20110912/METRO/109120377/FBI--Detroit-bound-flight-passengers-were-no-threat)
Happy 9/11 Day!
-
Man arrested for being brown and having diarrhea; woman, other man arrested for being brown and sitting next to man who was brown and had diarrhea. (http://detnews.com/article/20110912/METRO/109120377/FBI--Detroit-bound-flight-passengers-were-no-threat)
Happy 9/11 Day!
Let's read the story from one of the passengers' perspective. (http://shebshi.wordpress.com/2011/09/12/some-real-shock-and-awe-racially-profiled-and-cuffed-in-detroit/)
-
this is also a pretty strong issue for the Republicans to take on once they realize, oh yeah, the public's never going to think we're softer on terrorists than Democrats no matter WHAT we do.
Took 'em long enough. (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-11-16/politics/politics_tsa-anniversary-bashing_1_tsa-administrator-john-pistole-greg-soule-aviation-security)
-
Broun concurred. "We must focus on identifying terrorists and stopping them instead of patting down grandma and children. And we must stop worrying about political correctness,"
welp, sounds like an excuse to arrest more brown people.
-
Which is, honestly, several steps up from current practice as far as potential effectiveness.
-
Aviation security expert: airport security doesn't fucking work (http://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/terrorist-threats-to-commercial-aviation-a-contemporary-assessment). Sure is expensive, though!
Hey, Congress! You're looking for ways to cut tens of billions in wasteful spending, right?
-
Rand Paul refuses patdown, misses flight. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57363889-503544/rand-paul-in-tsa-showdown-after-refusing-pat-down/)
I've been saying for some time now that Republicans are our best hope for reversing the TSA excesses because Democrats are too afraid of being called soft on terrorism.
Hoping we see Paul take this to the Senate, but he's not the ideal leader on the subject given that his party has spent months (years?) attacking his father for being soft on terrorism because he doesn't want to invade Iran.
-
http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/24/conquering-the-terrorist-threat-one-terr#commentcontainer (http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/24/conquering-the-terrorist-threat-one-terr#commentcontainer)
Little girl passes through TSA checkpoint, breaks protocol by running back to hug grandmother.
GETS BRANDED A TERRORIST FOR LIFE.
-
Man with "World's Largest Penis" stopped by airport security. (http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/2012/07/17/man-with-worlds-biggest-penis-stopped-at-sfo-security/)
If you're going to touch junk, well, go big or go home, I suppose!
Let the unfortunate jokes commence?
-
"It was probably harder on them than it was on me."
Yes, yes indeed.
-
American Airlines staff kick a disabled veteran's service dog, call him a "retard". (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2176900/Disabled-veteran-says-United-airlines-staff-kicked-service-dog-asked-retarded-delays-forced-spend-THREE-days-airport.html#ixzz21K6iSFIR)
-
American Airlines staff kick a disabled veteran's service dog, call him a "retard". (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2176900/Disabled-veteran-says-United-airlines-staff-kicked-service-dog-asked-retarded-delays-forced-spend-THREE-days-airport.html)
A disabled veteran and his service dog were abused by United Airlines staff, he has claimed.
:wat:
That said, on the subject of mocking a disabled vet, and abusing his dog because it "startled you"
fuck this gay earth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mfA1jNiqoU#ws)
-
This gay earth's holes have been getting pretty abused lately.
-
It was asking for it. Showing off those huuuuge tracts of land like that.
-
Ars: Court orders TSA to justify year-long defiance of the law (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/court-orders-tsa-to-justify-year-long-defiance-of-the-law/)
Critics of the full-body scanners have questioned whether the machines protect the health and privacy of travelers, and whether the machines will prove effective at stopping terrorists. Ordinarily, those concerns would be raised during the formal rule-making process that federal agencies are required to conduct before they establish new regulations.
The TSA appears to believe these requirements do not apply to them. So in 2010, the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a lawsuit challenging the use of the scanners. In July 2011, the DC Circuit agreed with EPIC that the TSA needed to begin a formal rule-making process, as the law requires.
When the one-year anniversary of that order rolled around, the TSA appeared to have completely ignored the court. So EPIC asked the court to compel the TSA to explain its inaction. On Wednesday, the court granted the request and ordered the agency to explain its actions by the end of August.
-
ABC News ran a sting against dirty TSA inspectors by leaving behind iPads (with tracking spyware) at ten airport checkpoints known for theft and following them electronically. One iPad, left at an Orlando checkpoint, moved 30 miles to the home of Andy Ramirez, a TSA inspector at the airport. Initially, he denied stealing the iPad, then he blamed his wife. He has since been fired from the TSA.
I'm sure that he was the only crook working in the entire agency and now we're all safe. Thank goodness.
-
If you touch my afro I am going to have you arrested (http://thegrio.com/2012/11/15/solange-knowles-afro-gets-a-tsa-pat-down/)
-
...
...
But you can't actually hide a stiletto or anything like that in an afro, can you?
Even if you could wouldn't that air-puff technology reveal it?
-
TSA terminates contract with Rapiscan (http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2013/01/18/naked-airport-scanners/1845851/), is going to swap out the nude-photo-style scans for stick figures.
Yeah, that sounds literally cartoonish in its lack of efficacy to me, too. But I figure it's still a step up -- it can't be any more ineffective at catching weapons than the existing scanners were anyway, and this way poorly-trained government officials aren't keeping naked pictures of people.
-
HEY!
ARE YOU TRAVELING INTO/OUT OF THE U.S. BY AIR?
Here's some handy advice: Don't
-carry condoms
-carry "sexy" lingerie
-be a woman
http://rabble.ca/news/2013/04/sexism-border-personal-account (http://rabble.ca/news/2013/04/sexism-border-personal-account)
-
As furious as I am about that story and the stories like it in the comments, I'm actually relieved that the comments so far are only horrifying for their related stories, not for incredibly unintelligent bullshit being leveled at the author.
-
The TSA (maybe) won't touch your junk if you pay them $85. (http://rt.com/usa/tsa-precheck-program-launch-437/)
-
Ahahaha, finally we get down to brass tacks.
Or is that tax?
-
But TSA Administrator John Pistole on Friday announced that all travelers will soon be able to join PreCheck – as long as they pay $85 for a five-year membership, ...
There are a few programs for expedited travel across international borders, like the joint US CBP/Canadian CBSA NEXUS (http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/prog/nexus/menu-eng.html) setup. I've got that, and in addition to letting me zip across the US/Canada border a lot faster, it also adds faster clearance back through US airports from any country, and even though it's not a TSA program it somehow adds in PreCheck access as part of the deal.
NEXUS costs $50 for five years.
-
It's like a reverse prostitute.