I thought I saw this in another thread, but a search did not find it so...
Tulsa is the test city for the new Full Body Scanners to replace metal detectors at airports. It takes twice as long to go through than a metal detector (30 seconds per person not a big deal for an individual, but 30 seconds per person times any more than 120 an hour = trouble. And 120 people an hour is a joke.) but are far more sensitive. They produce an "image" of the entire person.
USA Today had an article on the Tulsa test today:
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2009-02-19-airport-scanners_N.htm
Another article was run a couple days back:
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2009-02-17-detectors_N.htm
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6Jg28bvpOzM/SQS1JN4DIZI/AAAAAAAABG0/1Unfg8zpIM8/s400/scanner_img.jpg)
(http://www.tampabay.com/multimedia/archive/00033/b4s_scanner080808b_33483d.jpeg)
You can clearly see muscle tones, fat rolls, breasts including nipples, and even rather detailed images of genitals. The degree of exact detail is adjustable as is the clarity of that detail. However, the fact still remains that the government official will be able to ascertain if you are wearing a padded bra, how large a man's penis is, if your butt sags, if you have a flat stomach, do you have anything pierce that is usually covered... basically everything they could if they saw you naked.
Frankly, as a heterosexual male I could find such images of certain women to be of interest as it is one step removed from seeing someone naked. Am I to assume that TSA Staff are professionals who will have no such interest? It's a virtual strip search, IMHO. Every man, woman, and child. Certainly if I had such images of children on my computer the government would like to have a word with me. And it wouldn't matter if I blurred their faces... but hey, don't worry:
quote:
The images are not sensitive, screeners said.
"They are not pornographic at all," Tulsa screener Debbie Shacklett said. "I don't look at them as people. I look at them as a thing that could have something on it."
It's not a naked person. Just a naked thing. Email pictures of your naked female spouse thing to me at...
Now, lets recall that all the blades used on 911 were allowed on planes, they were not forbidden weapons. Lets recall that experts agree that removing our shoes at the airports has probably saved zero lives. Let's recall that banning liquids was a farce (as proven by Popular Science & Myth Busters AND the fact that you can still bring any amount of saline or other 'medical' liquids on board without them even opening the container).
Is it neat? Sure. Will it help protect airports? Certainly it can. Is it a revealing, potentially embarrassing and ripe for abuse (how long until the first body scan website is posted, our government loses computers from NUCLEAR ARMS LABS fairly regularly), yes. Given that security at airports has not really been a problem, I'd say the trade off in liberty is not worth the added illusion of security.
I have a flight next week.
My plan is to use tape plastic letters under my shirt that say "not a threat".
I agree 100% with CF. We've gone insane when it comes to security theater at our airports. (and elsewhere to a somewhat lesser degree)
Metal detector and perhaps an explosives sniffing machine is all that's needed. There's no need for the TSA to strip search everyone who passes through the security checkpoint.
What's next? "Can you lift your scrotum, please?" They do it when you're booked into jail, so why not at the airport? You could be hiding a razor blade under there, after all.
i'm not going through that thing.
i'm going to make them work to not find anything on me.
I wonder what the ratio will be on women muslims being told to go in it vs. any other race.
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
I wonder what the ratio will be on women muslims being told to go in it vs. any other race.
I understand the profiling idea you present but Muslim is a religion, not a race.
I was not aware that the electronic rays were not associated with the X-Ray family where constant exposure has a very detrimental effect on the reproduction of the body cells. These rays may be like tobacco that was, not harmful to the body cells until the later part of the 20 century.
Of course a shoe string was a very effective weapon used by the Japanese in WW11 when it was used to strangle the GI sitting in their fox holes. Next shoe string will be ban on flight or you will have to wear string less shoes.
When they say that no pictures can be made where these pictures posed for to show the extent of the exposure?
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/TSA-Fracas-After-Body-Scanner-Reveals-TMI-92971929.html
Quote from: jne on May 07, 2010, 11:30:16 AM
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/TSA-Fracas-After-Body-Scanner-Reveals-TMI-92971929.html
well that's a double whammy. Now he's known for all the little things
"[Negron] then told victim to kneel down and say 'your sorry,'" the report reads. "Victim stated he was in fear and complied with [Negron]."
PSYCHO alert!
Gawd I just love TSA. What a great little industry that's become. If that alone were President Bush's sole legacy, then yes, he's the worst ever.
And TSA is just that tiny little cherry at the top of the big ol' banana split Bush legacy.
How much do you think TMZ would secretly pay a TSA worker for some celebrity scans?
It's only a matter of time.
Quote from: patric on May 07, 2010, 12:45:32 PM
How much do you think TMZ would secretly pay a TSA worker for some celebrity scans?
It's only a matter of time.
Supposedly when the scans are in use by the public (this stemmed from a training scan), the scanner operator is in a remote location and does not interact with, or know who the person on the scanner is. The scans that I have seen, which see through hair and makeup as well as clothes, makes it hard to reconize someone going through.
Like that matters. The babes on the internet are pretty well separated from me too. At least they get paid for dropping their shorts.
How do i get a job at this TSA outfit?
Quote from: waterboy on May 07, 2010, 01:11:10 PM
Like that matters. The babes on the internet are pretty well separated from me too. At least they get paid for dropping their shorts.
How do i get a job at this TSA outfit?
You would also be forced to look at those that will leave you with nightmares for years. I would always be in fear that my ex-mother-in-law would decide to fly somewhere
The dude on the top right is definetely black......
Quote from: Breadburner on May 07, 2010, 04:40:25 PM
The dude on the top right is definetely black......
And the one on the top left is Aunt Fester?
Waterboy,
First make your appointment for the lobotomy...
I actually looked up the position. Not bad. Pays up to $40K and requires you to be able to work under adverse conditions: noise, angry customers, alarms, potential theats and confusion. They emphasize that it is a service to your country.
Better than what I get now with the same adverse conditions.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on February 20, 2009, 10:01:34 AM
Tulsa is the test city for the new Full Body Scanners to replace metal detectors at airports. It takes twice as long to go through than a metal detector (30 seconds per person not a big deal for an individual, but 30 seconds per person times any more than 120 an hour = trouble. And 120 people an hour is a joke.) but are far more sensitive. They produce an "image" of the entire person.
Feds have been keeping the images after all:
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=16030.0
Liar, liar...
In Tulsa, you can no longer choose to go through the "old-fashioned" metal detector lines. They all now have the silly body scanner thingies.
I don't like them for several reasons:
1. You have to completely empty your pockets (even of paper money, kleenex, billfold, etc). This slows things down. Plus, where do you put your stuff when you do this? (In an open tray where somebody else can grab it while you're stuck waiting for the results of your scan.)
2. You have to remove your belt, etc. This also slows things down. I never have to remove my belt to go through the metal detectors. This adds to the slow/annoying factor.
3. A lot of TSA people are creepy, and even if they weren't, I don't want them looking at my naked body. Even if I were still 25. (Maybe especially if I were still 25...)
4. Nobody is ever going to hijack an airplane with something they might be able to sneak through a metal detector. The passengers would overwhelm them and beat the crap out of them before they made it to the cockpit. This is the main thing that has changed since 9/11...and it provides us all with much better security than all the TSA "theater" at the airports.
Quote from: PonderInc on August 26, 2010, 07:10:18 PM
In Tulsa, you can no longer choose to go through the "old-fashioned" metal detector lines. They all now have the silly body scanner thingies.
I don't like them for several reasons:
1. You have to completely empty your pockets (even of paper money, kleenex, billfold, etc). This slows things down. Plus, where do you put your stuff when you do this? (In an open tray where somebody else can grab it while you're stuck waiting for the results of your scan.)
2. You have to remove your belt, etc. This also slows things down. I never have to remove my belt to go through the metal detectors. This adds to the slow/annoying factor.
3. A lot of TSA people are creepy, and even if they weren't, I don't want them looking at my naked body. Even if I were still 25. (Maybe especially if I were still 25...)
4. Nobody is ever going to hijack an airplane with something they might be able to sneak through a metal detector. The passengers would overwhelm them and beat the crap out of them before they made it to the cockpit. This is the main thing that has changed since 9/11...and it provides us all with much better security than all the TSA "theater" at the airports.
Werent we told you had the option of being frisked /waned if you didnt want to be body scanned?
Wonder what the official position on that is know? Of course if you dont know your rights, they may be under no obligation to assist you.
Isnt it nice to know you have a naked picture of yourself in some federal database (that wasnt supposed to exist in the first place)?
A friend - I guess - sent me this link for pizza delivery. Apparently it is a real place. In New Zealand.
CAUTION!! This is an interactive zombie video and is very graphic with bloody violence. In a B movie sort of way. If you are squeamish at all - DON'T go here. You've been warned, so don't come whining to me later.
Lots and lots of blood. Kind of like the IRS, though, so I was strangely at home with the whole experience. (As in how the IRS keeps on sucking your life's blood until you are bled dry.) And you can win free pizza for a year!
Or the TSA and the way they want to probe your most intimate inner depths. Yeah, it's a stretch, but I think a valid connection. (Commentary on government zombies?)
Click the go arrow in the center of the page.
http://hellpizza.co.nz/
Quote from: PonderInc on August 26, 2010, 07:10:18 PM
In Tulsa, you can no longer choose to go through the "old-fashioned" metal detector lines. They all now have the silly body scanner thingies.
I don't like them for several reasons:
1. You have to completely empty your pockets (even of paper money, kleenex, billfold, etc). This slows things down. Plus, where do you put your stuff when you do this? (In an open tray where somebody else can grab it while you're stuck waiting for the results of your scan.)
2. You have to remove your belt, etc. This also slows things down. I never have to remove my belt to go through the metal detectors. This adds to the slow/annoying factor.
3. A lot of TSA people are creepy, and even if they weren't, I don't want them looking at my naked body. Even if I were still 25. (Maybe especially if I were still 25...)
4. Nobody is ever going to hijack an airplane with something they might be able to sneak through a metal detector. The passengers would overwhelm them and beat the crap out of them before they made it to the cockpit. This is the main thing that has changed since 9/11...and it provides us all with much better security than all the TSA "theater" at the airports.
My Daughter just flew into Tulsa last week. Good thing she didn't fly out from here, I think I would get started on some of those child porn lawsuits.
Do you not still have the option of taking the pat down?
Quote from: nathanm on August 27, 2010, 08:25:35 AM
Do you not still have the option of taking the pat down?
I prefer a "feel up" to a "pat down."
Just seems more optimistic.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 27, 2010, 09:25:33 AM
I prefer a "feel up" to a "pat down."
Just seems more optimistic.
I haven't had many lady TSA folks, so it's usually a pat down. ;D
Quote from: nathanm on August 27, 2010, 09:50:57 AM
I haven't had many lady TSA folks, so it's usually a pat down. ;D
When they snap those rubber gloves on...OH...I feel the sensation of a York Peppermint Patty being smeared all over me.
Quote from: nathanm on August 27, 2010, 09:50:57 AM
I haven't had many lady TSA folks, so it's usually a pat down. ;D
That's discriminatory.
Knowing that the TSA actually keeps the near-naked images doesnt do anything to promote trust and confidence in their little theater.
Pat-Downs 101: Nine Things to Know About Your Thanksgiving Airport Screening
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F2_0_s_0_0_t&usg=AFQjCNF_YEP3g3rRC2LCYRch73S5GNWOjQ&cid=17593819774014&ei=MxbkTKCQBY7Q8ASbvp6NAQ&rt=MORE_COVERAGE&vm=STANDARD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnewsfeed.time.com%2F2010%2F11%2F17%2Fpat-downs-101%2F
Leaked online: The body scanner images we were promised would never be saved or published
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1330327/Airport-security-breach-naked-body-scanner-images-leaked-online.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
US body-scanner boycott gains momentum
http://news.cheapflights.co.uk/2010/11/us-body-scanner-boycott-gains-momentum/
The Fed's Porn Stash
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=16030.0
Here's an account by a woman who claims she was sexually assaulted by TSA.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/chase-e1.1.1.html
Remember the good ole days when probable cause or even reasonable suspicion was necessary before a government official could put their hands on you?
I will definitely be opting out of the nude-o-scope scanner machine every time I fly. At least with the groping I can see what's going on and know there's nothing being stored anywhere.
Where are our small-government freedom-lovin', flag-waving elected representatives on this? Republicans can talk a big game about freedom, liberty and such, but I don't see them doing anything about it.
Quote from: TheTed on November 17, 2010, 01:36:00 PM
I will definitely be opting out of the nude-o-scope scanner machine every time I fly. At least with the groping I can see what's going on and know there's nothing being stored anywhere.
Where are our small-government freedom-lovin', flag-waving elected representatives on this? Republicans can talk a big game about freedom, liberty and such, but I don't see them doing anything about it.
You may hate it put just tune into any national talk radio show and you'll hear the outrage. I would like to know what the ACLU is doing about it.
I'll step into the booth. If someone's getting jollies from a blurry outline of my boys, so be it.
It might make me try to get into better shape.
This reminds me of the outrage from the 2 way mirrors in dressing rooms for department stores a while back.
Quote from: guido911 on November 17, 2010, 01:30:41 PM
Here's an account by a woman who claims she was sexually assaulted by TSA.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/chase-e1.1.1.html
Remember the good ole days when probable cause or even reasonable suspicion was necessary before a government official could put their hands on you?
But didn't you hear? You agreed to this kind of treatment by deciding to fly.
Next you will agree to the same treatment by deciding to walk out your front door. But you always have the choice of not being subjected to it by not leaving your home.
Now here is a rant worth listening to:
Quote from: TheTed on November 17, 2010, 01:36:00 PM
Where are our small-government freedom-lovin', flag-waving elected representatives on this? Republicans can talk a big game about freedom, liberty and such, but I don't see them doing anything about it.
Here's one.
http://duncan.house.gov/2010/11/duncan-blasts-tsa-pat-downs-body-scanners.shtml
I think the outrage over this whole ordeal is reaching majority level and then some. The question is though, what can we do about it? I mean honestly, what does it take to stop this kind of stuff?
Quote from: custosnox on November 17, 2010, 02:39:49 PM
I think the outrage over this whole ordeal is reaching majority level and then some. The question is though, what can we do about it? I mean honestly, what does it take to stop this kind of stuff?
There's at least one district attorney that will prosecute:
QuoteSAN MATEO COUNTY, Calif. (KGO) -- The San Mateo district attorney's office has a warning for all TSA personnel at SFO -- anyone inappropriately touching a passenger during a security pat down will be prosecuted.
Incoming San Mateo DA Steve Wagstaffe says any complaints of inappropriate touching during an airport security pat down will land on his desk.
"The case would be reviewed and if we could prove the elements of it, that it was inappropriately done with a sexual or lewd intent, that person would be prosecuted," he said.
The charge -- sexual battery.
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/peninsula&id=7793386
Otherwise, you can always file charges and/or sue.
Quote from: guido911 on November 17, 2010, 02:52:13 PM
There's at least one district attorney that will prosecute:
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/peninsula&id=7793386
Otherwise, you can always file charges and/or sue.
I see many recordings of pat downs in our future.
Won't have to use a doll anymore. "1 minute 45 seconds in is where he cupped it"
now if I have to take one of my kids on a plane, am I still allowed to defend my child from a pedophile trying to touch them inapproprately or take nude photo's of them?
The head of the TSA said on CNN yesterday that children under 12 are free to move about un-groped and un-scanned.
Quote from: Townsend on November 17, 2010, 03:07:28 PM
The head of the TDA said on CNN yesterday that children under 12 are free to move about un-groped and un-scanned.
oh, so my 13 year old will be subjected to it.
Quote from: custosnox on November 17, 2010, 03:08:23 PM
oh, so my 13 year old will be subjected to it.
From what I understood.
I believe this is the interview but I'm unable to watch for it.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/17/airport.security/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/17/airport.security/index.html)
Quote from: Townsend on November 17, 2010, 03:29:04 PM
From what I understood.
I believe this is the interview but I'm unable to watch for it.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/17/airport.security/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/17/airport.security/index.html)
Question still stands, am I allowed to protect my child from inappropriate touching and nude photos?
Quote from: custosnox on November 17, 2010, 03:32:56 PM
Question still stands, am I allowed to protect my child from inappropriate touching and nude photos?
From my understanding, if you choose to fly and you bring a 12 year old or older child, you have no choice.
That was from the interview I caught while eating lunch with my wife yesterday. By no means do I have the absolute answer. Strangely, the way Pistole, was acting on the interview, he may not have the absolute answer either.
Quote from: Townsend on November 17, 2010, 03:36:39 PM
From my understanding, if you choose to fly and you bring a 12 year old or older child, you have no choice.
That was from the interview I caught while eating lunch with my wife yesterday. By no means do I have the absolute answer. Strangely, the way Pistole, was acting on the interview, he may not have the absolute answer either.
I have the choice of breaking the nose of anyone who touches one of my kids in an inappropriate manner. And sadley enough, a parent protecting their children in such a manner is likely to go to jail
Quote from: custosnox on November 17, 2010, 03:40:38 PM
I have the choice of breaking the nose of anyone who touches one of my kids in an inappropriate manner. And sadley enough, a parent protecting their children in such a manner is likely to go to jail
and $11,000 fine if found guilty.
Quote from: Townsend on November 17, 2010, 03:47:19 PM
and $11,000 fine if found guilty.
And that is probably the best hope of doing anything about this whole ordeal, keep appealing it, and hope it goes to the top for a decision from the holy nine
Here are a couple of articles on the John Tyner incident in San Diego.....
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/nov/14/tsa-ejects-oceanside-man-airport-refusing-security/ (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/nov/14/tsa-ejects-oceanside-man-airport-refusing-security/)
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/nov/16/who-john-tyner-and-why-he-upsetting-tsa/ (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/nov/16/who-john-tyner-and-why-he-upsetting-tsa/)
They told him he wouldn't be flying today and that he had to leave, then when he left they told him he couldn't leave or he would be fined $10,000.00 for leaving.
Quote from: guido911 on November 17, 2010, 01:39:56 PM
I would like to know what the ACLU is doing about it.
It's at the bottom of the piece, Guido.
http://www.examiner.com/alternative-transportation-in-tulsa/more-tsa-groping (http://www.examiner.com/alternative-transportation-in-tulsa/more-tsa-groping)
The Senate will hold hearing on the new pat down procedure on the 24th.
Quote from: Ed W on November 17, 2010, 05:52:10 PM
It's at the bottom of the piece, Guido.
http://www.examiner.com/alternative-transportation-in-tulsa/more-tsa-groping (http://www.examiner.com/alternative-transportation-in-tulsa/more-tsa-groping)
The Senate will hold hearing on the new pat down procedure on the 24th.
They're doing something. That's good. It looks like all sides are lining up against this disaster of an idea.
So where are all these so-called pillars of liberty and freedom that talk so much about personal liberty and getting the government off peoples backs and out of their crotches?? Oh, yeah...they are the ones that passed those bills.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 17, 2010, 07:06:19 PM
So where are all these so-called pillars of liberty and freedom that talk so much about personal liberty and getting the government off peoples backs and out of their crotches?? Oh, yeah...they are the ones that passed those bills.
Oh, it's the repubs and Bush's fault for the decision to start junk jingling the past two weeks.
I am so incensed with this (and that freakin terrorist trial verdict) that I would consider taking a plaintiff case where there is an egregious example of sexual assault. And to avoid the obvious next question, "egregious" would be something along the lines of what happened to Erin Chase.
It's getting more interesting:
"As nearly 2 million holiday travelers pack Bay Area airports starting Friday, local prosecutors have a warning for overzealous security agents performing the new federal pat-down: touch passengers the wrong way, and we'll throw you in jail."
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Calif+prosecutors+they+charge+agents+downs+inappropriate/3845612/story.html#ixzz15bGH3vAa (http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Calif+prosecutors+they+charge+agents+downs+inappropriate/3845612/story.html#ixzz15bGH3vAa)
Can you spell "Patriot Act". That is where all this started. Under Bush and a fully in charge Republicontin Congress - both houses!!
And as if that weren't bad enough - the Dummycrats just can't stay out of the ridiculous party any more than the Republicontins - anyone do any gardening out there? Maybe grow a tomato or pepper plant just for fun?? Well, you are about to become criminalized if you want to start your own seed with anything outside of what Monsanto wants you to grow! No heirlooms like Cherokee Purple, Rutgers, Mortgage Lifter.
And all under the lie of Food Safety Modernization Act.
http://www.naturalnews.com/030418_Food_Safety_Modernization_Act_seeds.html
and
http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/seeds-how-to-criminalize-them/
One would believe some members on this board are overreacting. The beaches are filled with bathing suits that show much more or the pat down is being used as security in searching for answers to try to keep a copy cat occurrence. The tapes of 911 showing the plane striking the second tower has a chilling effect on many people but the 911 would have happened regardless of present search procedures.
Solution would be underwear with lead foil fig leaves embedded and use the present scanner's for those squish who think their privacy is being invaded. ;) ;)
Let's all go naked!
Uh,....did I say that out loud??
This whole thing is a crock.
Quote from: guido911 on November 17, 2010, 07:44:30 PM
Oh, it's the repubs and Bush's fault for the decision to start junk jingling the past two weeks.
The "enhanced patdown" has been used for the past few months, not the past few weeks. Not that that shifts the responsibility at all. For some odd reason it took this long for the opposition to build up a head of steam, as it were.
I think everything beyond the X-Ray, the WTMD, and explosives trace detection machines are stupid. I've been opposing the TSA ever since rank stupidity the "shoes off" debacle. At the time Richard Reid pulled his Maxwell Smart-esque stunt, TSA was testing out the explosives trace detection portals (aka puffer machines), but for some reason decided that it was best to X-Ray shoes instead of having you wear them through the machine, despite the supposed threat being explosives in shoes.
For a long time, the "shoes off" policy only technically extended to shoes with soles greater than 2 inches in thickness, so I just didn't wear thick-soled shoes to the airport and told 'em where to stuff it if they tried to get me to take them off, despite it almost always resulting in an unwarranted secondary screening. Since they got rid of that exception, I've only flown once, to a destination not reachable by land transportation. I refuse to put up with their crap.
Yes, I am/was the one making them change their gloves and keep my carry-ons in my sight and follow every other procedure they've got to a T and filing a complaint if/when they don't. It's their fault our relationship got off to a rocky start back in 2001 when they took something from me which wasn't on the list of banned items and called the cops on me when I questioned that decision and asked to see the airport FSD. Since that time, I have been pleasant, but exceedingly strict. You can thank me for all those times you've seen me taking the patdown and making it take as long as possible, thus preventing you from having to be subject to it under the "we're out of people to secondary, so let's 'randomly' select the next person in line so we look busy" policy.
Quote from: nathanm on November 18, 2010, 01:10:20 PM
The "enhanced patdown" has been used for the past few months, not the past few weeks. Not that that shifts the responsibility at all. For some odd reason it took this long for the opposition to build up a head of steam, as it were.
I think everything beyond the X-Ray, the WTMD, and explosives trace detection machines are stupid. I've been opposing the TSA ever since rank stupidity the "shoes off" debacle. At the time Richard Reid pulled his Maxwell Smart-esque stunt, TSA was testing out the explosives trace detection portals (aka puffer machines), but for some reason decided that it was best to X-Ray shoes instead of having you wear them through the machine, despite the supposed threat being explosives in shoes.
For a long time, the "shoes off" policy only technically extended to shoes with soles greater than 2 inches in thickness, so I just didn't wear thick-soled shoes to the airport and told 'em where to stuff it if they tried to get me to take them off, despite it almost always resulting in an unwarranted secondary screening. Since they got rid of that exception, I've only flown once, to a destination not reachable by land transportation. I refuse to put up with their crap.
Yes, I am/was the one making them change their gloves and keep my carry-ons in my sight and follow every other procedure they've got to a T and filing a complaint if/when they don't. It's their fault our relationship got off to a rocky start back in 2001 when they took something from me which wasn't on the list of banned items and called the cops on me when I questioned that decision and asked to see the airport FSD. Since that time, I have been pleasant, but exceedingly strict. You can thank me for all those times you've seen me taking the patdown and making it take as long as possible, thus preventing you from having to be subject to it under the "we're out of people to secondary, so let's 'randomly' select the next person in line so we look busy" policy.
This seriously sucks. At it's best, it's security theater. At it's worst, it's billions spent on security procedures and equipment that can be foiled with a small container concealed in a body cavity. I would take the scanner over the grope session any day.
Remember this?
Quote
To get his bomb into this room, Abdullah Asieri, one of Saudi Arabia's most wanted men, avoided detection by two sets of airport security including metal detectors and palace security. He spent 30 hours in the close company of the prince's own secret service agents - all without anyone suspecting a thing.
How did he do it?
Taking a trick from the narcotics trade - which has long smuggled drugs in body cavities - Asieri had a pound of high explosives, plus a detonator inserted in his rectum.
I simply refuse to fly until they change the practice. I refuse, as a free American, to be treated like an inmate in an airport.
TSA is a perfect example of how badly our government can love up anything. I kept getting more and more agitated reading the narrative of the San Diego incident as supervisor after supervisor was called to deal with the passenger. How many layers of administration are really needed for every bureaucracy?
On my last family trip, In Tulsa my father-in-law (a 68 year old bald white guy with a cane) was chosen for the full pat & scan. His prosthetic hip was of great concern to the staff, as was the band and elastic on his golf hat. His cane was disassembled and he was forced to give up the roll of Roll-Aids in his pocket. He thought the whole ordeal was hilarious.
My 5 year old daughter, to her delight, also got the attention of the TSA agent with the "magic wand." I however was allowed to pass with my overgrown scruffy beard, sweats and sandals. My wife breezed through only because the TSA agents involved, have never seen her angry.
The amount of energy exerted in screening people who do not meet any of the historical profile for involvement in terrorism is incredible. Equally incredible is energy that goes into NOT screening people who do meet an established profile for terrorist activity.
Millions of hours of manpower devoted to random activity. Billions of dollars devoted to intentional inefficiency.
What if we looked at it from a clinical standpoint, ignored all other factors except those that have been proven to contribute to terrorist activity, asked questions that only pertain to the identification of possible terrorists, and took action that relied on human interaction rather than random selection?
Unlike other countries, we are forbidden from using race or religion as factors in profiling. Unfortunately, race and, in many cases, religion are very obvious, and this causes us a dilemma, because if we opt to screen someone on the basis of their actions alone, and that person happens to be of a particular race, we may be viewed, sued, or reprimanded for racial profiling. The ultimate outcome of this is that our agents specifically target those who do not meet racial or religious profiles matching those statistically associated with terrorism.
Over the years, unfortunately, we have had opportunity to build some fairly strong data on the PROFILE of a suicide terrorist. Most of the descriptions offer some striking psychological/behavioral similarities. Incorporating these profiles makes identification of terrorists statistically more probable.
Here's the scenario. Three terrorists enter the airport with the intension of blowing themselves up in an airplane. The TSA agent observes 27 random men in 3 minutes, and 8 of those men have no carry-on luggage and acting very nervous, 4 of those 8 men are of Arab decent, and 2 of those 4 are wearing taqiyahs and no jewelry, our TSA agent would most likely only screen 3 random people, and the random selection process would have a very low probability of identifying the 3 guys with the C4 up their butts.
This is our problem. We may lose lives, but at least no one is offended. We are looking for bombs when we should be looking for bombers.
I'm waiting for the annual TSA nail clipper sale, each one costs us about $1,000.
As I said, it's security theater at it's finest.
The solutions they implement are worthless. Looking at it as a signal to noise ratio, it's even more ridiculous. Instead of concentrating on the signal (bombers) they are looking at the noise and completely ignoring everything else.
Gaspar, your post brought to mind someone being interviewed on the radio while I was driving from OKC to Tulsa this morning. He said the whole TSA model is a failure as they are screening based on "history" rather than thinking about future potential targets for terrorists like blowing up busy shopping malls during the holiday season. Just what I want to think about: getting groped going into Victoria's Secret. Wait, that might not suck....
I really do not see that 9/11 warranted the creation of a whole new agency when existing screeing could have been modified based on what we learned were the failures of security on the 9/11 flights.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 18, 2010, 03:35:37 PM
Gaspar, your post brought to mind someone being interviewed on the radio while I was driving from OKC to Tulsa this morning. He said the whole TSA model is a failure as they are screening based on "history" rather than thinking about future potential targets for terrorists like blowing up busy shopping malls during the holiday season. Just what I want to think about: getting groped going into Victoria's Secret. Wait, that might not suck....
I really do not see that 9/11 warranted the creation of a whole new agency when existing screeing could have been modified based on what we learned were the failures of security on the 9/11 flights.
I know I'm going to get lambasted here for referencing everyone's favorite lefty screecher Olbermann, but he did have a gentlemen on late during his show last night (a former El Al security executive) who essentially said the same exact things as you allude.
And it would matter...was it mall security groping, or the VS models. Gives me the creeps, because now when I think of mall security I think of Paul Blart on a Segway....ick.
http://www.npr.org/2010/11/18/131427580/airports-weigh-congressman-s-call-to-ditch-tsa?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.npr.org/2010/11/18/131427580/airports-weigh-congressman-s-call-to-ditch-tsa?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
Airports Weigh Congressman's Call To Ditch TSA
QuoteIn a climate of Internet campaigns to shun airport pat-downs and veteran pilots suing over their treatment by government screeners, some airports are considering another way to show dissatisfaction: ditching TSA agents altogether.
Federal law allows airports to opt for screeners from the private sector instead. The push is being led by a powerful Florida congressman who's a longtime critic of the Transportation Security Administration and counts among his campaign contributors some of the companies who might take the TSA's place.
Olberman interviewed the former chief of security for El Al. an airline that's faced terrorist threats for far longer than we have. One thing they do is to interview every person before they board. He said that security personnel approach passengers as they wait in line at the ticket counter. Anyone suspicious gets secondary screening, but he didn't specify what that entailed.
Now, it's tempting to say this could lead to racial profiling, but at the same time it may be a better approach than our gadget-based one.
Quote from: Ed W on November 18, 2010, 05:49:35 PM
Olberman interviewed the former chief of security for El Al. an airline that's faced terrorist threats for far longer than we have. One thing they do is to interview every person before they board. He said that security personnel approach passengers as they wait in line at the ticket counter. Anyone suspicious gets secondary screening, but he didn't specify what that entailed.
Now, it's tempting to say this could lead to racial profiling, but at the same time it may be a better approach than our gadget-based one.
I saw part of that interview while channel surfing last night. I was shocked that such information would come out on that show. Here his video of Peter Johnson & Ann Coulter arguing over the issue. Johnson had an interesting take on Israel's handling of security. Towards the end, though, the whole thing spirals into mindless filibustering and shouting (and it wasn't Coulter).
http://www.examiner.com/american-politics-in-vancouver/hannity-video-2
Quote from: guido911 on November 18, 2010, 06:24:09 PM
I saw part of that interview while channel surfing last night. I was shocked that such information would come out on that show. Here his video of Peter Johnson & Ann Coulter arguing over the issue. Johnson had an interesting take on Israel's handling of security. Towards the end, though, the whole thing spirals into mindless filibustering and shouting (and it wasn't Coulter).
http://www.examiner.com/american-politics-in-vancouver/hannity-video-2
Shocked? The El Al chief didn't have good command of English, but I didn't hear anything shocking, Guido. I think he meant to say that Yemen was a "backward" country, but he said Yemen was retarded. I found that inappropriately funny, but then again, it was very early in the morning.
Quote from: Ed W on November 18, 2010, 08:13:26 PM
Shocked? The El Al chief didn't have good command of English, but I didn't hear anything shocking, Guido. I think he meant to say that Yemen was a "backward" country, but he said Yemen was retarded. I found that inappropriately funny, but then again, it was very early in the morning.
No no no. I was shocked to hear information that I agree with on
Olbermann's show.
well trained bomb sniffing dogs would eliminate a lot of this. Was actually watching a story on one that can follow the trail of any known explosive even hours after the person carrying it passed by and track them through crowded streets.
Remember that is was box knives used on 9/11. Whatever is looked for must be comprehensive for everything that has been tried so far, plus whatever might be used.
These x-rays ain't gonna catch it, though, at least no better that what has been done. And sexual molestation won't either.
I think we could learn a lot from the Israeli's on this subject. They have been much more serious than we for a much longer time. But I guess that would intrude on our aversion to any kind of foreign influence on our country.
the box-knifes worked on 9/11 only because no one could fathom that they would fly the planes into a building. Before than a highjacking pretty much meant landing in another country and waiting to be released. It didn't make since to risk a knife cut. Now anyone trying the same thing would be swarmed by everyone on the plane, as evidenced by the plane that went down in PA. Of course by then the terrorist already had control of the plane by the time the passengers figured out.
Quote from: guido911 on November 18, 2010, 06:24:09 PM
I saw part of that interview while channel surfing last night. I was shocked that such information would come out on that show.
Why? The only good security is the sort that works even if your adversary knows all the details. Much like cryptography, actually.
Quote from: Ed W on November 18, 2010, 05:49:35 PM
Olberman interviewed the former chief of security for El Al. an airline that's faced terrorist threats for far longer than we have. One thing they do is to interview every person before they board. He said that security personnel approach passengers as they wait in line at the ticket counter. Anyone suspicious gets secondary screening, but he didn't specify what that entailed.
Now, it's tempting to say this could lead to racial profiling, but at the same time it may be a better approach than our gadget-based one.
Of course he didn't elaborate. People in the intel community still understand why you don't let enemies know what you look for to foil their attacks. American politicians and bureaucrats would do well to heed this.
As well Israel does engage in profiling. They put the need to protect their citizens above the fear of offending someone. Its a fact that profiling works in preventing crime. If profiling becomes such a burden to Islam, then perhaps that will bring about pressure from within to jettison radicals who are fomenting terrorism from their ranks.
What are we trying to accomplish with enhanced airport security post 9/11? Are we trying to make air travel safer or trying to foster better relations by appeasing Muslims via TSA? We pat down blue-haired women while we give a pass to those who are far more likely to commit an act of terrorism.
Conan, the thing you're missing is that basing your security on profiling opens you up to further avenues of attack. A completely random screening system (as in selection for extra screening is totally random) can't be defeated by testing the profile. The adversary cannot just send lots of people through security and see which sorts of people are more or less likely to get secondary screening.
Quote from: nathanm on November 19, 2010, 08:39:20 AM
Conan, the thing you're missing is that basing your security on profiling opens you up to further avenues of attack. A completely random screening system (as in selection for extra screening is totally random) can't be defeated by testing the profile. The adversary cannot just send lots of people through security and see which sorts of people are more or less likely to get secondary screening.
I simply don't see it that way. You treat everyone equal in the screening process and pay particular attention to those who fit the profile of of terrorists.
It seems to be working quite well for the Mossad and ISA.
Until yesterday I was unaware that airport managers had the option of using private screening companies or TSA. I hope TSA gets booted from the majority of airports and eventually disbanded. There was never a need to create an entire new agency as private security could have been brought up a notch or two with Federal supervision. TSA was most definitely a FAIL in the Bush legacy. DHS overall is a huge joke under Napolitano.
Found this "show my you prosthetic breast" story on Drudge.
http://www.wbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13534628
Drudge is taking a fairly in depth look at stories of TSA pat downs.
I want machines to scan and analyze every creature and every piece of cargo that enters our public transportation systems and every transportation system that has access to the United States. I want every commuter on every train every day routinely scanned as they enter the system. I do not want fallible and prejudiced human beings making flawed judgment calls. The days of privacy (as well as smuggling) in our public transportation systems is coming to an end. We will adjust to the new order as we have adjusted to the fact that there is no real privacy on the internet or in our various computer systems. Remember that poem ... All watched over by machines of loving grace.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 19, 2010, 09:11:28 AM
TSA was most definitely a FAIL in the Bush legacy. DHS overall is a huge joke under Napolitano.
You can blame Congress for that one, Bush reportedly didn't want a new agency. The fear was that the private companies would be focused more on saving money than effective screening. Properly implemented, TSA wouldn't be such a joke. Unfortunately, as it stands it seems to attract idiots and power trippers who can't get a job as a LEO.
Also, arguing against statistics isn't the wisest of battles to take up. ;)
There is a limited amount of secondary screening one can do with the funds available. If you're busy secondarying people who fit a particular profile, all a terrorist organization has to do is find someone who doesn't fit the profile and they're less likely to get an intensive screening. They get an essentially unlimited number of tries in which to evaluate the system before attempting to smuggle contraband through the screening.
Of course, there are far easier ways to get contraband airside than through the security checkpoint...
TBH, I don't know why I'm even going this far to defend our present security practices. They're utterly stupid. The procedures we had pre-9/11 were perfectly sufficient. The only reason the attacks worked was that box cutters were allowed, cockpit doors were flimsy, and passengers had been trained for a long, long time to wait out a hijacking. None of those are the case today. That attack would be highly unlikely to succeed, so now we worry about bombing, which we had been dealing with reasonably well since the 70s.
The supreme irony in that is that we're doing our best to avoid finding bombs. Richard Reid's shoe bomb would have been caught by an ETD portal. What did we do after his attempt? We stopped using ETD portals and started X-Raying shoes. pancakes? The backscatter x-ray machines can't tell if you're carrying a bomb in your rectum. An ETD machine would likely detect traces of explosives.
Moreover, our long lines make a great soft target. The only reason I can see that nobody has bothered to exploit that is that we're doing a good enough job frakking ourselves up for al-Qaeda to feel the need to make any major effort. Why bother doing hard work when half-assing it works just as well at whipping us into a frenzy?
Edited to add: Thanks, Admin, for changing the swear filter. ;)
I think that's been the point missed all along: No one would have ever dreamed of a box cutter or straight blade being used to disable a couple of pilots before 9/11. You could have a razor in your carry-on as well as screwdrivers, a small pen knife, nail clippers, etc.
When I was a manager in the chemical business, I had an open territory in Memphis which went un-filled for a few months. We had existing accounts in the MEM area which had to be serviced on a regular basis or they could cancel our contract. So I had to take with me a chemical reagent kit to do testing. I had thorium nitrate, two different percentages of sulfuric and hydrochloric acid, silver nitrate, hexavalent chromium and a few other nasty reagents. All in about 2 oz bottles. Plus I had a screwdriver kit, channel locks, pen knife, a small UV light ballast and probe which were used to digest a particular reagent, etc. I never explained any particular hazards of any of the reagents as there really weren't other than if you got them in your eye or purposely ingested them. They were all very low percent active, but I did keep MSDS sheets in the box just in case.
It was a good sized tackle box. I flew Northwest on a Saab 340 turboprop and would gate check the kit to keep it from getting upset by baggage handlers as there was also glassware in it. IOW, I used to be able to go through security with that thing plus a lap top. If I tried that these days, I'd be spread-eagle on the ground in no time.
After awhile it got to be a PITA to have to explain the whole thing to the security agents at TUL and MEM and I ordered an entire kit from HQ to leave at a customer's in MEM so I didn't have to lug it around.
Sorry for the off-tangent, basically pointing out we were pretty naive about what could be used to disable an airliner, and agreeing that the immediate modifications made in security after the 9/11 were more than sufficient to prevent another such hi-jacking. I think passengers are far more aware and vigilant now and having random sky marshalls has gone a long way as a deterrent.
It simply pisses me off that the reaction to failed bomb attempts like the shoe bomber and crotch bomber has been a much more invasive intrusion into privacy and personal liberty when it's really done nothing to make the airlines any safer than they were before these isolated incidents. I simply don't think there's a way for any passenger to get sufficient explosives to bring a plane down on board on their body. If anything, luggage or cargo should be a more intense focus.
Quote from: Hometown on November 19, 2010, 10:20:36 AM
I want machines to scan and analyze every creature and every piece of cargo that enters our public transportation systems and every transportation system that has access to the United States. I want every commuter on every train every day routinely scanned as they enter the system. I do not want fallible and prejudiced human beings making flawed judgment calls. The days of privacy (as well as smuggling) in our public transportation systems is coming to an end. We will adjust to the new order as we have adjusted to the fact that there is no real privacy on the internet or in our various computer systems. Remember that poem ... All watched over by machines of loving grace.
Do you think all those people should have to carry and show ID on demand? We've been having some interesting discussions lately about that.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 19, 2010, 11:33:55 AM
Do you think all those people should have to carry and show ID on demand? We've been having some interesting discussions lately about that.
To travel on an airplane with me? yes.
To vote in an election? If the ID is supplied free of charge but not charged to me as a taxpayer, yes. So if we can find someone to supply these ID's to vote gratis, let's do it.
Quote from: Townsend on November 19, 2010, 11:37:57 AM
To travel on an airplane with me? yes.
To vote in an election? If the ID is supplied free of charge but not charged to me as a taxpayer, yes. So if we can find someone to supply these ID's to vote gratis, let's do it.
They already supply the ID to the voter when they register. It's a total non-issue so I would expect the lawsuit to be thrown out in short order.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 19, 2010, 11:40:45 AM
They already supply the ID to the voter when they register. It's a total non-issue so I would expect the lawsuit to be thrown out in short order.
A picture ID? Isn't this all about a picture ID?
If it's changed to just a voter registration card, I'm good with that.
Anyway, You think the general public will get used to these extra steps or do you think it will be pulled back over time?
Quote from: Townsend on November 19, 2010, 11:42:00 AM
A picture ID? Isn't this all about a picture ID?
If it's changed to just a voter registration card, I'm good with that.
That's what it's said all along on the question. In the absence of a photo ID, a voter registration card was considered acceptible identification. The question was basically saying: bring a friggin' ID to vote. Did anyone even read the text of the questions before they voted?
Here's the exact text of the measure:
"This measure amends statues relating to voting requirements. It requires that each person appearing to vote present a document proving their identity. The document must meet the following requirements. It must have the name and photograph of the voter. It must have been issued by the federal, state or tribal government. It must have an expiration date that is after the date of the election. No expiration date would be required on certain identity cards issued to person 65 years of age or older.
In lieu of such a document, voters could present voter identification cards issued by the County Election Board. A person who cannot or does not present the required identification may sign a sworn statement and cast a provisional ballot. Swearing to a false statement would be a felony.
These proof of identity requirements also apply to in-person absentee voting. If adopted by the people, the measure would become effective July 1, 2011.
Shall the proposal be approved?
For the proposal
Yes: __________
Against the proposal
No: __________ "
Quote from: Conan71 on November 19, 2010, 11:33:55 AM
Do you think all those people should have to carry and show ID on demand? We've been having some interesting discussions lately about that.
Paper documents are easy to forge. I want a national data bank with an electronic record of each citizen's unique iris pattern. Guest workers in the U.S. will have their iris patterns added to the data bank as well. I want nations that have access to the U.S.' transporation systems to have the same technology and a treaty provision guarantying they will apply it. A beam of light will find each traveler's iris and compare it to the data bank. The technology should be unobtrusive, automatic, work at the speed of a super computer and along with cargo scanners and body scanners it should be routinely applied to all people and cargo upon entering any public transportation system.
Why not just ask for a photo ID? That'll stop about a majority of the fraud. Sure there will be forgery and ID duplication, however the fraud will be thousands of times less prevalent.
What is so hard about that?
Why are my rights "violated" when someone at the polls asks for my ID, but not when someone at the gas station asks for it?
Why do I have to present an ID to enter the White House, but not to put someone in the White House?
Geezzz!
Quote from: Conan71 on November 19, 2010, 11:46:18 AM
That's what it's said all along on the question. In the absence of a photo ID, a voter registration card was considered acceptible identification. The question was basically saying: bring a friggin' ID to vote. Did anyone even read the text of the questions before they voted?
Eh, I'm good with a voter ID card. I always carry mine anyway. Now if that clears the way for "quizzes", I'm back to being out again.
I'm actually getting tired of the whole issue. If you vote, you vote. It's not like we get a huge say in the process anyway.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 19, 2010, 11:46:18 AM
That's what it's said all along on the question. In the absence of a photo ID, a voter registration card was considered acceptible identification. The question was basically saying: bring a friggin' ID to vote. Did anyone even read the text of the questions before they voted?
It seems a bit of the question was cut out of your post.
QuoteBALLOT TITLE: This measure amends statues relating to voting requirements. It requires that each person appearing to vote present a document proving their identity. The document must meet the following requirements. It must have the name and photograph of the voter. It must have been issued by the federal, state or tribal government. It must have an expiration date that is after the date of the election. No expiration date would be required on certain identity cards issued to person 65 years of age or older.
In lieu of such a document, voters could present voter identification cards issued by the County Election Board.
A person who cannot or does not present the required identification may sign a sworn statement and cast a provisional ballot. Swearing to a false statement would be a felony.
These proof of identity requirements also apply to in-person absentee voting. If adopted by the people, the measure would become effective July 1, 2011.
SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED?
FOR THE PROPOSAL Yes: __________
AGAINST THE PROPOSAL No: __________
DISPOSITION: Pending approval or rejection on General Election November 2, 2010
That is where a problem can present itself. The poll workers in some areas might start to demand picture ID's for any number of reasons. (race, party affilliation, etc.)
Okay, this TSA story made my day:
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/11/18/another-tsa-outrage/
Quote from: guido911 on November 19, 2010, 12:35:44 PM
Okay, this TSA story made my day:
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/11/18/another-tsa-outrage/
Holy moly, what website was that? Ann Coulter was undressing me with her eyes.
Quote from: Townsend on November 19, 2010, 12:41:21 PM
Holy moly, what website was that? Ann Coulter was undressing me with her eyes.
It's Erick Erickson's Red State. I found that story at a less rabidly right website and I probably should have linked the story from there. Did you read the account of that BS encounter?
I love it, free to fly with an M-16 and a 9mm but no nail clippers! That's TSA at it's classic best.
We already went over all this. The only reason why it is legal is because they allow the free voter ID cards to count.
Quote from: guido911 on November 19, 2010, 12:47:19 PM
It's Erick Erickson's Red State. I found that story at a less rabidly right website and I probably should have linked the story from there. Did you read the account of that BS encounter?
I did. It's crazy, I agree.
TSA Guy: (nail clippers) can be used as a weapon.
Soldier: [touches butt stock of the rifle] But this actually is a weapon. And I'm allowed to take it on.
TSA Guy: Yeah but you can't use it to take over the plane. You don't have bullets.
If I were the soldier, I would have been tempted to demonstrate how an unloaded carbine could be used as a weapon. It would have left a lasting... impression.
Quote from: patric on November 19, 2010, 02:16:49 PM
TSA Guy: (nail clippers) can be used as a weapon.
Soldier: [touches butt stock of the rifle] But this actually is a weapon. And I'm allowed to take it on.
TSA Guy: Yeah but you can't use it to take over the plane. You don't have bullets.
If I were the soldier, I would have been tempted to demonstrate how an unloaded carbine could be used as a weapon. It would have left a lasting... impression.
Head Butt...???
If the airports switch to the private companies, I have a hard time thinking they'll be much or any better than the TSA.
I guess they could outsource.
In strong accent, "Hi. Welcome to security. My name is 'Peggy'. I will be touching you very good time."
"uh, hello...'Peggy'".
Quote from: Townsend on November 19, 2010, 02:32:35 PM
If the airports switch to the private companies, I have a hard time thinking they'll be much or any better than the TSA.
I guess they could outsource.
In strong accent, "Hi. Welcome to security. My name is 'Peggy'. I will be touching you very good time."
"uh, hello...'Peggy'".
If it would help dismantle that pig of a bureaucracy, I'm all for it.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 19, 2010, 03:22:50 PM
If it would help dismantle that pig of a bureaucracy, I'm all for it.
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQdDP1P7deiDQZcsnGM15_w7hI_dzxao_vVC61xbN5cq8ZmClcprQ)
'Peggy'
As long as "Peggy" uses the phone to "reach out and touch someone", including by being in a remote site, it might be OK.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20023426-10391695.html (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20023426-10391695.html)
Airport Body Scanners: Less Invasive Technology is Out There
Quote from: patric on November 19, 2010, 02:16:49 PM
If I were the soldier, I would have been tempted to demonstrate how an unloaded carbine could be used as a weapon. It would have left a lasting... impression.
(http://www.onpointsupply.com/images/colt/colt_umarex_22lr_m4_carbine_1.jpg)
Wouldn't ever want to get butt stroked (that's what we used to call it) by one of these.
Quote from: Townsend on November 19, 2010, 11:37:57 AM
To travel on an airplane with me? yes.
Why does it matter who is on the plane with you if they don't have any weapons? It's not as if there have never been incidents of seemingly normal people flying off the handle and beating up fellow passengers and/or flight attendants before.
The ID check is nothing more than revenue protection for the airlines. Which is why the airlines began asking for ID long before 9/11.
Bruce Schneier is a security guru who's been vocal about the "security theater" and airport security has a good roundup of coverage and while the pornoscanners are worthless.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/11/tsa_backscatter.html
BTW: odds of getting cancer from the scanners is about the same as getting blown up by terrorists.
Quote from: Townsend on November 19, 2010, 03:47:05 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20023426-10391695.html (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20023426-10391695.html)
Airport Body Scanners: Less Invasive Technology is Out There
Why are we trying to solve a human / intelligence problem with technology?
Quote from: Gaspar on November 19, 2010, 12:01:44 PM
Why are my rights "violated" when someone at the polls asks for my ID, but not when someone at the gas station asks for it?
I would think that you would be keenly aware of the difference between government and private enterprise, and why the government doing something may just be worse than private enterprise doing it. Although these days, with the massive private databases we're all cataloged in, I think it may be time for a reevaluation of all that.
Also, Schneier is awesome in ways completely unrelated to his commentary on TSA.
And people wonder why I haven't flown since 1999. I don't fly much and don't have a problem with flying, but since 9/11, and all of the changes it became apparent to me and the former mrs. that most places we might go to are maybe a day or two day drive and we could plan it that way. Most of the places we would go were usually 8 hours at the most, and with all the requirements to fly it was simpler, easier, and quicker to drive 99% of the time. My comment used to be "Remember when racing was dangerous and sex was safe?" Now it's "Remember when flying was convenient and driving was a hassle?"
Quote from: nathanm on November 19, 2010, 07:13:25 PM
Why does it matter who is on the plane with you if they don't have any weapons? It's not as if there have never been incidents of seemingly normal people flying off the handle and beating up fellow passengers and/or flight attendants before.
The ID check is nothing more than revenue protection for the airlines. Which is why the airlines began asking for ID long before 9/11.
Makes me feel better to think someone's attempting something to effect my health in a positive way.
Maybe one should take Viagra and insist on the aggressive patdown.
Quote from: BKDotCom on November 19, 2010, 07:17:59 PM
BTW: odds of getting cancer from the scanners is about the same as getting blown up by terrorists.
From the millimeter wave scanners, yes. From the backscatter x-ray scanners? It's not at all clear. The FDA says it's fine. Some respected scientists in the field say it needs more study to be sure.
The main issues being that:
a) the controls on the scanners haven't been rigorously tested to make sure that they shut down rather than exceed the intended dose
b) unlike a standard X-Ray most of the energy is dissipated in the outer inch or so of your body and the Compton scattering, which is what they measure, necessarily implies that chemical bonds are being broken in your cells. If it so happens that your DNA gets hit, this can lead to mutations and cancer if your damaged cells don't properly undergo apoptosis. Some people are more prone to this, especially women who have a history of breast cancer in their families.
I'm no physics expert, I'm just repeating what I've read.
Rep. John J. Duncan Jr., former Chairman of the House Aviation Subcommittee and the current top Republican on the House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, blasts TSA's invasive "pat downs" during a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives on November 17, 2010. Duncan also questions the role of lucrative government contracts in TSA's new naked body scanning machines.
The former secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, represents Rapiscan, the company which is selling these scanners to his former department.
It's a little clearer, now.
TIA has the option of firing TSA and using private security. Sounds like Mayor Bartlett should chime in on that.
Let's strip search kids!!!
I guess the terrorists have won. Our transportation system is in chaos.
(Chaos is NOT a town east of Tulsa.)
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 20, 2010, 09:43:42 PM
I guess the terrorists have won. Our transportation system is in chaos.
The terrorists won when they frightened us into making a free country something much less.
I'm glad to see your posts again, HT. :)
And here's another one:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/tsa-pat-down-leaves-bladder-cancer-patient-humiliated-crying-soaked-in-urine/
OKC Airport Considers Ditching TSA, Hiring Private Screeners
http://www.koco.com/news/25855370/detail.html
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7766475/
Quote from: patric on November 21, 2010, 04:43:07 PM
OKC Airport Considers Ditching TSA, Hiring Private Screeners
http://www.koco.com/news/25855370/detail.html
Love the comments after the article. Guess OKC PD is the greatest. ::)
Quote from: cecelia on November 21, 2010, 01:36:53 PM
I'm glad to see your posts again, HT. :)
Hi Cecelia, I checked and noticed that you haven't been posting here much recently either. That's unfortunate because you are an outstanding advocate. So I want to encourage you to shed some light on the issues debated. Think of it as our charity work.
Anyway, I find the opposition to the body scans to be a lot of noise coming from a bunch of goody two shoes who somehow thought that all the new security procedures didn't apply to them. I say, count your blessings that you haven't been shipped off to Gitmo – yet, shut up, get in line and spread your legs.
Quote from: Hometown on November 22, 2010, 02:11:33 PM
yet, shut up, get in line and spread your legs.
You are such a sweet talker...
They should make you pay for the pat-down. They charge for everything else now.
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live//video/Message+from+TSA/1261478?ref=nf
Proof that marketing works!
From USA Today:
L-3 Communications, which has sold $39.7 million worth of the machines to the federal government, spent $4.3 million to influence Congress and federal agencies during the first nine months of this year, up from $2.1 million in 2005, lobbying data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics show. Last year, the company spent $5.5 million on lobbying.
Its lobbyists include Linda Daschle, a prominent Democratic figure in Washington, who is a former Federal Aviation Administration official.
Rapiscan Systems, meanwhile, has spent $271,500 on lobbying so far this year, compared with $80,000 five years earlier. It has faced criticism for hiring Michael Chertoff, the Homeland Security secretary, who has been a prominent proponent of using scanners to foil terrorism. Officials with Chertoff's firm and Rapiscan say Chertoff was not paid to promote scanner technology. It spent $440,000 on lobbying in 2009.
The government has spent $41.2 million so far on Rapiscan's machines.
It seems that Chertoff is a far better investment than Daschle. ;)
Quote from: Gaspar on November 22, 2010, 03:26:42 PM
Officials with Chertoff's firm and Rapiscan say Chertoff was not paid to promote scanner technology.
And we are supposed to believe this?
His new company gets a $40 million contract from his old government employer and he wasn't involved.
And I am the Queen of England.
We can save all kinds of money by just having people strip and submit to a quick cavity search.
Nothin fumunda and nothin in the prison wallet and you're on your way!
I'm thinking this may open the door for a nudest airline. I can see the marketing now. . .
Tired of lines at the airport?
Fly Naked Air
We promise we won't check your bag!
Let us be the wind beneath your . . .
Looks like a few people have jumped the gun (no pun intended).
(http://content.clearchannel.com/cc-common/mlib/1139/11/1139_1290458359.jpg)
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 22, 2010, 03:56:27 PM
And we are supposed to believe this?
His new company gets a $40 million contract from his old government employer and he wasn't involved.
And I am the Queen of England.
and. . . Chertoff's boss, the CEO of Rapiscan Systems, was President Obama's special guest on his recent trip to India.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 22, 2010, 03:56:27 PM
And we are supposed to believe this?
His new company gets a $40 million contract from his old government employer and he wasn't involved.
And I am the Queen of England.
You do resemble her. I think it's the beard.
Quote from: Gaspar on November 22, 2010, 03:17:01 PM
They should make you pay for the pat-down. They charge for everything else now.
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live//video/Message+from+TSA/1261478?ref=nf
SNL needs to bring back "Pat" for a TSA skit.
Quote from: dbacks fan on November 22, 2010, 08:52:51 AM
Love the comments after the article. Guess OKC PD is the greatest. ::)
Looks like altruismsuffers and his consiracy clan and tulsaworld type comments.
She's a robot, sent to destroy our freedoms...
The video ends when a TSA goon orders the photographer to stop (which he lacked authority to do).
Banovac said she chose to wear her underwear because of an unpleasant experience two weeks ago at airport security. She is typically hand-searched at airports because she uses a wheelchair, she said, and she felt violated by the more invasive searches employed at airports recently.
"If it happened anywhere else, it would have been sexual assault."
Banovac said she was trying to board a flight to Phoenix on Tuesday when she was pulled aside at security for a more thorough search.
She said TSA employees told her equipment detected traces of nitrates, which are used in bombs, on her clothing and luggage. She said a TSA supervisor told her to leave the airport and "come back tomorrow" after more than an hour of hand searches and questioning."git 'yer camera up... off."
The church has begun to recognize the gap between the dinosaurs and those who post of this board was accelerated by the radiation of which we are bombarded with each day from the sun light. This evolution did not happen over night. The scanning is no question subjecting those wanting to board the plane to many times that of the radiation from the sunlight.
It is assumed the rungs of the genetic spiral could be altered to in the future the offspring's of our species could be changed change to where we would become another species of monsters. As one should be aware there was many species of dinosaurs.
The scanners subject the scanned to many times radation of our sun. If one need proof just stand before a screen in the sunlight and look for a picture.
Quote from: shadows on December 01, 2010, 06:06:10 PM
The church has begun to recognize the gap between the dinosaurs and those who post of this board was accelerated by the radiation of which we are bombarded with each day from the sun light. This evolution did not happen over night. The scanning is no question subjecting those wanting to board the plane to many times that of the radiation from the sunlight.
It is assumed the rungs of the genetic spiral could be altered to in the future the offspring’s of our species could be changed change to where we would become another species of monsters. As one should be aware there was many species of dinosaurs.
The scanners subject the scanned to many times radation of our sun. If one need proof just stand before a screen in the sunlight and look for a picture.
Actually, according to the experts, these machines have the same level of radiation as three minutes of high altitude of flight. So I wouldn't exactly call thatmany times radiation of our sun. If you claim otherwise, without proof or even the knowledge of scientists to fall back on, it is nothing more than speculation.
Quote from: custosnox on December 01, 2010, 08:11:49 PM
Actually, according to the experts, these machines have the same level of radiation as three minutes of high altitude of flight.
By citing a best-case scenario, and ignoring that there is more than one type of scanner, they are engaging in a bit of a deception.
"Radiation Experts Concerned With TSA Airport Security Scanners"
A commentary on the safety of new full-body scanners and why experts disagree with the government
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/cancer/articles/2010/11/18/radiation-experts-concerned-with-tsa-airport-security-scanners.html
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101129/01274612033/molecular-biologist-highlights-serious-safety-concerns-over-tsa-scanners.shtml
With respect to errors in the safety reports and/or misleading information about them, the statement that one scan is equivalent to 2-3 minutes of your flight is VERY misleading. Most cosmic radiation is composed of high energy particles that passes right through our body and the plane itself without being absorbed. The spectrum that is dangerous is known as ionizing radiation and most of that is absorbed by the hull of the airplane. So relating non-absorbing cosmic radiation to tissue absorbing man-made radiation is simply misleading and wrong. Of course these are related and there is over-lap, but we have to compare apples to apples.
Furthermore, when making this comparison, the TSA and FDA are calculating that the dose is absorbed throughout the body. According the simulations performed by NIST, the relative absorption of the radiation is ~20-35-fold higher in the skin, breast, testes and thymus than the brain, or 7-12-fold higher than bone marrow. So a total body dose is misleading, because there is differential absorption in some tissues. Of particular concern is radiation exposure to the testes, which could result in infertility or birth defects, and breasts for women who might carry a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.
"This is a large experiment on a large population," said Bouchaib Rabbani, chief medical radiation physicist at Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center's Robert and Beverly Lewis Family Cancer Care Center. He is also the Pomona hospital's radiation safety officer.
"Nobody can say with certainty that it will have an effect. Nobody can say with certainty that it won't have an effect," he said. "We really won't know until many years later. The biological effects might be different for different groups. http://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/sanbernardinocounty/ci_16729193
ISN'T THERE A SIGN SAYING "NUDIST TAKE THE FAR LANE AND AND SAVS TIME'"
Quote from: shadows on December 02, 2010, 09:34:37 PM
ISN'T THERE A SIGN SAYING "NUDIST TAKE THE FAR LANE AND AND SAVS TIME'"
I cannot believe you have not been flamed yet by the chief poster policeman.
Quote from: guido911 on December 03, 2010, 09:28:15 AM
I cannot believe you have not been flamed yet by the chief poster policeman.
Why? Are you offended by the San Antonio Vegetarian Society?
http://home.roadrunner.com/~savstx/ (http://home.roadrunner.com/~savstx/)
I'm sure they're lovely people.
Quote from: Townsend on December 03, 2010, 09:35:56 AM
Why? Are you offended by the San Antonio Vegetarian Society?
http://home.roadrunner.com/~savstx/ (http://home.roadrunner.com/~savstx/)
I'm sure they're lovely people.
Thanks for the laugh.
Quote from: guido911 on December 03, 2010, 09:28:15 AM
I cannot believe you have not been flamed yet by the chief poster policeman.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The post by Patric contains all the information on the speculation as we are dealing with changes in the species in 100 to 2000 years. The species of man as we know it has existed only as a flash in the eons of time. This planet we occupy contain the ruins of many civilizations that we search to find their failures today. What Patric points out is there is a time table of what we cannot point out but in our shallow minds we are assuming the powers of our creator. That in the future we could and may assume the role of a creator or God. As we speculate if the radiation will effect the genes there is not a living person today who will see or be part of this possible remaking of this species.
Then to if we modify the genetic spiral our arms may be replaced by wings and then there would be no need for scanning.
But look at the government employees who would loose their jobs.
Quote from: shadows on December 04, 2010, 08:55:58 PM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
...in our shallow minds we are assuming the powers of our creator. That in the future we could and may assume the role of a creator or God.
You mortals just crack me up.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 04, 2010, 10:21:49 PM
You mortals just crack me up.
Gee! you are right, who needs fancy schooling when one can purchase over the internet, diplomas from schools that are no longer in business for $25,00 and up. I have never heard of a job seeker being ask to show their diploma. In the today's world the only thing needed is a government job with its birth to grave perks. Course it help to have family or friends ties to point the way as is being pointed out by the TW reports and comments daily. .
TSA pats down Indian ambassador.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1337137/US-faces-diplomatic-storm-Indian-ambassador-Meera-Shankars-TSA-patdown.html
Someone is off their meds again.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 09, 2010, 03:57:14 PM
Someone is off their meds again.
I think that's a prerequisite for being appointed head of the Department of Homeland Security.
A gun got through?
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/loaded-gun-slips-past-tsa-screeners/story?id=12412458
Israeli Airport Security specialists call the TSA system "Bull****"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1336571/Terrorism-Can-really-stop-bomber-asking-Are-terrorist.html
...and using child predator techniques to get children to accept improper touching.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/airport-patdowns-grooming-children-sex-predators-abuse-expert/
(http://www.rawstory.com/images/new/tsachildpatdown.jpg)
Quote from: patric on December 29, 2010, 02:26:06 PM
...and using child predator techniques to get children to accept improper touching.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/airport-patdowns-grooming-children-sex-predators-abuse-expert/
(http://www.rawstory.com/images/new/tsachildpatdown.jpg)
Is this the sign on the door for the room they take the children to?
(http://knowyourmeme.com/system/icons/5/original/pedobear.jpg?1229148177)
You know, there's an easy way to end all this airport groping:
That oughta do it!
They banned her again.....
http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=13752120 (http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=13752120)
Quote from: dbacks fan on December 29, 2010, 05:17:50 PM
They banned her again.....
http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=13752120 (http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=13752120)
Quintuple facepalm
Quote from: Conan71 on December 29, 2010, 06:41:52 PM
Quintuple facepalm
So it wasn't safe to let her fly Tuesday, but she'll be a-OK after sleeping overnight in the airport? ::)
Quote from: nathanm on December 30, 2010, 06:37:03 PM
So it wasn't safe to let her fly Tuesday, but she'll be a-OK after sleeping overnight in the airport? ::)
If she had a time bomb, it would go off overnight. Unless she reset it, it wasn't a time bomb.............
Didn't see this coming:
Tammy Banovac posed nude for Playboy.
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2010/12/tammy_banovac_tsa_security_str.php
Man, am I going to the wrong dentist, or what??
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 03, 2011, 08:20:33 PM
Man, am I going to the wrong dentist, or what??
She doesn't have a liscense any more.
http://www.koco.com/r/25998916/detail.html (http://www.koco.com/r/25998916/detail.html)
Any lawyers here who could help her get the license back??
I read one of the reports about losing the license - she apparently was pretty much incompetent. Didn't do x-rays properly.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 03, 2011, 08:33:54 PM
Any lawyers here who could help her get the license back??
I read one of the reports about losing the license - she apparently was pretty much incompetent. Didn't do x-rays properly.
The child had a heart condition and it was a reaction to the sedative.
Didn't read that one. There were apparently several issues.
What happened to the child? Fatality? (That sucks much more than big time if so...)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 03, 2011, 09:11:59 PM
Didn't read that one. There were apparently several issues.
What happened to the child? Fatality? (That sucks much more than big time if so...)
Yes about 3 hours after the procedure.
http://www.okcfox.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/kokh_vid_2526.shtml (http://www.okcfox.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/kokh_vid_2526.shtml)
Pulled 9 teeth instead of 2. That is sad, but so very hard to make a direct cause/effect. If pulling 9 was fatal, would pulling only 2 been few enough not to kill him? Throw in a congenital heart problem and the situation is muddied. Sad, like these football players that drop dead at training.
I read that too. I am trying to remember when I was taken to the Dentist as a young lad, if my parents had to divulge to the "Dentist" My whole health history.
Maybe that would be why she was not charged with anything.
But it does ad to the nut job story that she alone has created. The posing for Playboy is well......obvious. She's hot and had a chance to do so at 40.
Let's face it. Hugh needs to call her and do a re-shoot at 52. It would sell. Get her naked in a wheel chair with that dog of her's. Bada Bing ! Sales.
Tough call whether the procedure was directly involved or not. Have had friends go to hospital, been treated and died. Did the treatment cause the death?
This may well have happened anyway.
Hot? Hmmmm. Well, it don't hurt my eyes to look at her, so I guess so.
Quote from: DolfanBob on January 04, 2011, 01:21:08 PM
I read that too. I am trying to remember when I was taken to the Dentist as a young lad, if my parents had to divulge to the "Dentist" My whole health history.
Maybe that would be why she was not charged with anything.
But it does ad to the nut job story that she alone has created. The posing for Playboy is well......obvious. She's hot and had a chance to do so at 40.
Let's face it. Hugh needs to call her and do a re-shoot at 52. It would sell. Get her naked in a wheel chair with that dog of her's. Bada Bing ! Sales.
Maybe that's what she's angling for. That or a reality show.