Topic: If you touch my junk I am going to have you arrested. (Read 9702 times)

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'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.

WSJ op-ed 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.

Mongrel · « **Reply #1 on:** November 17, 2010, 03:40:00 PM »

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.

Ted Belmont · « **Reply #2 on:** November 17, 2010, 03:41:30 PM »

So uhh how about that Fourth Amendment guys

Mongrel · « **Reply #3 on:** November 17, 2010, 03:51:48 PM »

Ah here we go: This fine goes to 11

Beat Bandit · « **Reply #4 on:** November 17, 2010, 04:05:52 PM »

Quote from: Thad on November 17, 2010, 03:31:23 PM

Blogger is subjected to the invasive "pat-down" procedure without first being informed of what it entails; that would be sexual assault.

It's funny how "vaginal area" sounds medical, but "vagina area" sounds like you're twelve.

Thad · « **Reply #5 on:** November 19, 2010, 10:56:53 AM »

More via BoingBoing:

Cancer surviving flight attendant forced to remove prosthetic breast during pat-down

ASU prof analyzes radiation exposure from Rapiscans. 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, 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.

Classic · « **Reply #6 on:** November 19, 2010, 11:26:14 AM »

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?

Friday · « **Reply #7 on:** November 19, 2010, 11:30:42 AM »

Quote

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?

Royal☭ · « **Reply #8 on:** November 19, 2010, 11:36:13 AM »

Quote from: Classic on November 19, 2010, 11:26:14 AM

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.

Classic · « **Reply #9 on:** November 19, 2010, 11:42:46 AM »

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.

Büge · « **Reply #10 on:** November 19, 2010, 11:47:51 AM »

Quote from: Constantmean on November 19, 2010, 11:36:13 AM

Quote from: Classic on November 19, 2010, 11:26:14 AM
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?

Cthulhu-chan · « **Reply #11 on:** November 19, 2010, 11:50:55 AM »

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.

Thad · « **Reply #12 on:** November 19, 2010, 12:20:27 PM »

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.

Classic · « **Reply #13 on:** November 19, 2010, 12:25:19 PM »

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.

Cthulhu-chan · « **Reply #14 on:** November 19, 2010, 01:20:44 PM »

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.

Thad · « **Reply #15 on:** November 19, 2010, 01:30:21 PM »

Bruce Schneier on Security; a useful roundup of quotes and links, including an ACLU rundown of your rights and options.

Rico · « **Reply #16 on:** November 19, 2010, 02:35:39 PM »

Quote from: Thad on November 19, 2010, 12:20:27 PM

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.

Brentai · « **Reply #17 on:** November 19, 2010, 05:35:49 PM »

Quote from: Cthulhu-chan on November 19, 2010, 01:20:44 PM

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?

Shinra · « **Reply #18 on:** November 19, 2010, 06:41:11 PM »

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?

Büge · « **Reply #19 on:** November 19, 2010, 07:17:59 PM »

Quote from: Brentai on November 19, 2010, 05:35:49 PM

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.

News:

Author Topic: If you touch my junk I am going to have you arrested. (Read 9702 times)