12 ms·

For the First Time, the TSA Meets Resistance

259 points by timf 16y ago

mynameishere 16y ago
It's hard to put into words how insane these are. Is the TSA merely a jobs program? Are the devices just corporate welfare? Is there an actual concerted effort by the inner party (who ride in carriages--private jets) to psychologically subjugate the middle class? Are policy makers actually under the impression that these are good rather than evil/ridiculous/unAmerican/insane? (???) Really? I mean, what is the simplest way to prevent another 9/11? Steel cockpit doors and a communications shutoff between cockpit and everything outside. No physical threats possible = no terrorism. Problem solved. But of course, terrorism isn't actually a problem and never was.
- tptacek 16y ago
  Yes. No. No. Yes. Yes. Agreed.
- krschultz 16y ago
  Not exactly. Recall prior to the hijacking being done by brute force on the pilots, most airline terrorism was bombs on planes. If we don't have any security what-so-ever, people could just bring hand grenades onto airplanes and I am 100% certain you could crash them that way. There is a safe middle ground here, and metal detectors were definitely in it. Full body scans? Not so much.
- hugh3 16y ago
  I mean, what is the simplest way to prevent another 9/11? Steel cockpit doors and a communications shutoff between cockpit and everything outside. Well you've still got the bomb-on-plane problem, which is what the latest three rounds of security increases have been in response to -- there was the shoe bomber, and then the liquid-mixture plot, and then the underpants bomber. You'll note that none of these plots worked. Why? Because they were increasingly shitty bombs. Why were they increasingly shitty bombs? Because they've been progressively closing loopholes. The underpants bomber might have been successful if he were shoe bomber number two, but he wasn't, because the bomb-in-shoe loophole has been closed. People like to use the words "security theater" a lot because it makes them feel clever, and yes, the TSA like any government department has its own particular forms of insanity. But there's actual security accomplished there too. In the 1980s it was possible to sneak a 747-destroying bomb into a plane in a suitcase... now they're reduced to sticking dynamite up their butts. Also, communications shutoff between the cockpit and outside is crazy. What happens when there's a medical emergency onboard? Let 'em die because the pilots aren't allowed to know about anything that happens in the passenger cabin?
  - StavrosK 16y ago
    Out of curiosity, how many bombs in suitcases did we get back when people could do that?
    - confuzatron 16y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Airliner_bombings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Airliner_bombings I suppose the time when people could do that is at earliest, the most recent of those incidents.
  - jcromartie 16y ago
    > the latest three rounds of security increases But there haven't been security increases! They are just targeting one of an infinite number of threats, making their coverage with each of these specific measures effectively zero. Remember: the 9/11 hijackers didn't need bombs.
    - hugh3 16y ago
      They are just targeting one of an infinite number of threats That's silly, there's a finite number of threats to airliners. Excluding external threats like missiles (which are themselves defended against by other agencies) you've got two basic avenues: bombs and hijackings. Hijackings require weapons. The first hijackers used guns, so the TSA (and other similar agencies around the world but I'll use the TSA as an example) made it hard to get guns on board. So the next round used knives. So the TSA made it hard to get knives on board. With the damn near impossibility of getting knives on board plus the fact that passengers in a hijacking are now much more inclined to fight back, hijacking is pretty much fully defended against. Bombings require bombs. The earliest bombers used suitcase bombs, which is ideal from their point of view because they can be very large. But security screening got better and suitcase bombs are too difficult nowadays. So they switched to shoe bombs. But now they're impossible. So they switched to underpants bombs. And with the latest (overly invasive) techniques that's more or less impossible too. The size of the largest bomb you can smuggle on board keeps decreasing, and the danger keeps getting smaller and smaller -- whatever you can stick up your butt it's never gonna blow a sizeable hole in the side of an airliner. It's a finite space of threats, and they're actually doing a pretty good job at defending against them. That's why since 9/11 there have been N foiled attempts to attack airliners, and zero successful ones (I think there was a Russian exception).
- marclove 16y ago
  It has nothing to do with jobs programs/corporate welfare. Remember there were security people before the TSA (just not as many) and the TSA was created in the post-9/11 panic. This, like most aviation security, is just security-theater. The American people were scared and so elected officials, realizing they couldn't realistically secure aviation, come up with a bunch of "procedures" that's supposed to make the general public feel more comfortable. In the end, it's about votes.
- matwood 16y ago
  I mean, what is the simplest way to prevent another 9/11? Steel cockpit doors and a communications shutoff between cockpit and everything outside. Another 9/11 scenario is going to be near impossible to pull off. Pre-9/11 hijackings often left the passengers with some hope of living through the situation so they would be docile and controllable. Post-9/11 passengers will not be docile and the hijackers will have to effectively control the entire plane with force. There is still run of the mill blow up the airplane style terrorism to watch out for, but that was around before 9/11 and will be around for long time after.
curtis 16y ago
* ... because the coiled, closely packed lines at TSA screening sites are the most dangerous places in airports, completely unprotected from a terrorist attack -- a terrorist attack that would serve the same purpose (shutting down air travel) as an attack on board an aircraft.* This is a good point, but I don't completely agree with it. If terrorists can smuggle a bomb on board an airplane, they can probably smuggle tools on board that will allow them to break into the cockpit. Then (as we've seen), the plane itself can be used as a very large bomb. (Note that I am not venturing an opinion on whether backscatter imagers are a solution to this problem or whether the invasion of privacy is worth it even if they are.)
- tptacek 16y ago
  In the history of air travel has anybody ever breached a secured airplane cockpit (of any sort?). To the extent that we're concerned about the security of cockpits, maybe our efforts are best directed towards better cockpit doors instead of strip-search machines.
  - nodata 16y ago
    We already have better cockpit doors - _that_ is probably the only security measure since 9/11 that was a) a good idea, and b) worth the money.
    - curtis 16y ago
      Indeed we do. I don't know if it's the only new security measure that's a good idea, but I do think it's by far the most important one.
  - Cushman 16y ago
    United Airlines Flight 93.
    - arst 16y ago
      Was the cockpit door on UA93 reinforced? I can't recall ever hearing/reading that.
bittermang 16y ago
I was hoping this was going to be an article about backlash, or a new approach to security screening. Instead, Resistance was literally a euphemism for the author's penis.
- epochwolf 16y ago
  > Instead, Resistance was literally a euphemism for the author's penis. I was under the impression it was his testicles. From the article: 'That's funny," I said, "because 'The Resistance' is the actual name I've given to my testicles."
jedwhite 16y ago
The dangerous thing about security theatre is that it distracts resources and personnel away from the things that would actually improve security, in the interests of PR and cosmetics based on inconveniencing the non-terrorists. As the author points out, detailed background checks would be far more effective than either looking at or touching people's privates.
- io 16y ago
  But would it be less of an invasion of our privacy?
  - jedwhite 16y ago
    Yes. Simple background checks based on public records and customer history / credit checks are things that we already accept every time we deal with any financial institution or government agency. A programmatic check would exclude the vast majority of travellers as potential terrorists. And manual inspection by a junior intelligence analyst most of the rest, leaving senior analysts to evaluate more serious threat cases. That would be far less intrusive and far less invasive a procedure than violating the physical privacy of very many and in some cases every traveller, which is where this is already heading at several major airports.
    - darklajid 16y ago
      Hmm.. You mean like "Your dad is from Egypt, let's put a gps sender on your car and treat you 'special' at the airport from now on, since our background check thinks you're part of the target group"? Seriously, how would a background check work? What are you looking for? Ethnic background obviously would be the biggest failure (although still done, see above). Credit history? Police records (international? Good luck with that)? Either you disclose what you are looking at and "the bad guys" can trick your check. Or you don't and you're back on the security by obscurity road, doing "arbitrary" (to the public) things, annoying probably just as much. I think this idea is just as flawed as the current procedure. And I surely hope no one is starting something like that, since this whole security BS seems like a race of arms to me lately..
dougb 16y ago
I just called my congressman and senators. If you disagree with what the TSA is doing, I suggest you do the same.
- swolchok 16y ago
  Senators are Congressmen. Did you mean your representatives?
  - ckinnan 16y ago
    Actually, by convention, Congressman or Congresswoman refers to the Representatives only.
    - swolchok 16y ago
      Congressman, n. A man who is a member of the U.S. Congress, especially of the House of Representatives. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/congressman http://www.thefreedictionary.com/congressman
- nollidge 16y ago
  Might want to wait a couple days to make sure your congresspeople still have their jobs...
DanielBMarkham 16y ago
The situation with TSA is becoming more farcical by the week. I keep waiting for some grownup to stand up and put some limits on what's acceptable for them to do, but then I realize that there basically is no limit. Nobody wants to be the person that stops this runaway train. It's enough to make me seriously consider whether I want to use commercial air travel again.
- StavrosK 16y ago
  Yeah, but what are you going to do if you're going overseas? Take a ship? :/
- psadauskas 16y ago
  I would love to stand up to it, but I'd really just rather get to my vacation place. If it didn't cost several hundred dollars for a plane ticket to get to that point, I would just drive down to the airport and do it. I guess we could all print fake boarding passes, though.
  - mixmax 16y ago
    They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up. Martin Niemöller
    - sliverstorm 16y ago
      That's a quote about discrimination. I don't see how it applies; we are all being discriminated against equally in this case.
      - mixmax 16y ago
        It's a quote about standing up to tyranny, and the fact that if you don't speak up when someone else is discriminated against you may be next in line. I think it applies very well in this case.
hvs 16y ago
On the plus side, you can finally (kind of) make a stand against all of this security theater by opting for the pat-down: I'm not the one who has to touch some else's testicles. You want screen me? Then you have to do the dirty work.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
drags 16y ago
I always opt-out of the back-scatter machine, and none of the TSA officers at SFO or BOS have ever seemed to think it anything out of the ordinary. The impression I've gotten is that they see the two methods (pat-down and back-scatter) as relatively interchangeable, though the former is obviously more inconvenient for them.
- tptacek 16y ago
  They already have to do the pat-down for anyone who trips up the machines (or who can't, for instance because of implants or a wheelchair).
tptacek 16y ago
The pat-down is better than the machine. If my privacy is going to be invaded, I want to look the person doing it in the eyes. If I'm going to be embarassed, I want the agent embarassed too. The pat-downs are inconvenient. Systematized invasions of our most private things should be inconvenient. TSA agents are going to face a torrent of complaints alleging abuse, molestation, &c. Good. The whole program is abusive. What scares me is the faceless machine nobody cares about silently collecting naked pictures of every citizen, managed by people nobody will ever see who can never be held accountable for anything. You can't simply flip a switch and capture high fidelity copies of a pat-down search. You can with the machines. Incidentally: contrary to popular opinion, security agents, law enforcement, border control, &c all very much do care when complaints are filed on them. Their M.O. is that nobody takes the time to file those complaints. They're counting on people not bothering with the pat-down because the machine seems more convenient, and they're counting on not dealing with a flood of complaints. I plan on filing a complaint at the first hint of an off-color comment about what they're doing. "Better get new gloves, Fred!" --- "I'd like your name and your supervisor's name, now."
- bdimcheff 16y ago
  I feel like we need a script to recite when demanding a patdown that explains to all the people around us why the porno machines and the whole process is so objectionable. And request to have the patdown out in the open so people can see what you're willing to put up with to avoid going through the scanner.
  - nodata 16y ago
    I thank that would be a good idea. But it needs to be catchy. At least where I am the "naked body scanner" phrase seems to have caught on (or at least be understood).
  - asmithmd1 16y ago
    Potential names for back scatter machine: Strip search Electronic strip search Virtual strip search Anonymous strip search
jdvolz 16y ago
I am wondering how long it is before people who like to get felt up are using this as there way to get their jollies. I'm also wondering how long it before someone sues the TSA for improperly touching them (too long, suggestively, etc.) or for injuring them (moving too fast and bumping the resistance). Edit: I hadn't even considered that maybe people who like to feel others up with sign up to work for the TSA
Mithrandir 16y ago
According to ABC News [1], these new "pat-downs" will not likely prevent someone like the Underwear Bomber from boarding. 1: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/tsa-pat-procedure-airports/story?id=11998304&page=2 http://abcnews.go.com/WN/tsa-pat-procedure-airports/story?id...
geuis 16y ago
So I'm just wondering, what if you're a parent flying with children? I don't have kids, so I don't know what the rules are for TSA screening of them. To me, it sounds like as a parent you either have the choice of letting some anonymous person in another room take naked pictures of your kids, or you have to let some strange man/woman touch and grope your children until they meet 'resistance'. In the meantime, metal detectors are in place but it seems like there's some move to phase these out. And when I have kids, if some government minimum wage flunky thinks they're going to grope my daughter or son, my wife will be posting bail for me soon thereafter.
- tptacek 16y ago
  I'm flying with my kids in a few months; my plan is to simply record the whole thing with my iPhone (you may see me in the news shortly thereafter). If my son gets upset, I plan to tell him "this is why you're going to take trig seriously; do bad in school and you might end up with this crappy job". The pat-down is better than the machine. Even for kids. Maybe especially for kids. If you're going to violate my kids privacy, you'd better believe I'm going to want to be in the actual room.
  - dmethvin 16y ago
    > If my son gets upset, I plan to tell him "this is why you're going to take trig seriously; do bad in school and you might end up with this crappy job". That is a horribly disrespectful thing to say in front of someone who is doing their job. Would you say something like that to a proctologist as they stuck a finger up your butt? I doubt the TSA people like this either, perhaps some will even resign over it. But that person has a job and they are doing it as they are instructed to do. That is the job they use to pay their rent and bills, so that they won't need to go on the dole and have their bills paid by your trig-savvy son. Bitch about the policy all you want, and do what you think needs to be done to change it. But don't belittle the TSA worker, they can't change anything.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      If you have the job that forces you to feel up the crotches of children in order to encourage their parents to send them through a machine that takes naked pictures of them without probable cause of having committed any crime, then I suggest you quit that job. Are plenty of hardworking people going to have their feelings and self esteem hurt by this process? Good. Systemetized violations of our most private areas should cause all sorts of pain. I might feel differently if these were sworn law enforcement officers we're talking about, for a number of reasons. I'm generally very respectful of law enforcement. Fortunately (or not), I'm not forced to confront that conundrum, since these aren't police officers, but low-skilled "security" contractors whose sole purpose is to harass citizens in order to create the illusion of control. By the way, in the history of all-time worst rationalizations for behavior, do we even need to talk about "that person has a job and they are doing it as they are instructed to do"?
ibejoeb 16y ago
(Not-so-farfetched) conspiracy theory alert This has new policy hit a wall with the press and has gotten nothing by negative writeups. When it was announced, I made a statement, as did many others, that there would very soon be an "incident" that would let this cure. That appears to be happening right now with this worldwide blitz on Yemeni packages. One and done. Two things here are very unfortunate: 1. This is one of those huge media events that take all the front page space and interrupt network programming. It's going to instil fear in some population and give merit to the security theater. 2. Interestingly, given that this is supposedly cargo, we're still not talking about systematically scrutinizing cargo. Even so, in a political context, I don't think anyone is going to sufficiently separate the two. Right now, the big lines are Richard Reid and Christmas Day Bomber. No matter what happens now--letters to Congress, TSA abuse reports, journalistic stunts--I fully expect to get my bread buttered at the airport. One more thing: there's a good post on the front page about incentives. How about a tax break for fondling or photo shoot on has to endure? Let's provide disincentives for the Fed to keep this up.
- tptacek 16y ago
  That is a far-fetched conspiracy, especially compared to the direct, obvious, immediate tactical simplicity of "send crazy shit to the US to make them overreact at great cost to themselves" for terrorist groups.
  - ibejoeb 16y ago
    Really? You don't think governments pull PR stunts too?
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
hugh3 16y ago
the coiled, closely packed lines at TSA screening sites are the most dangerous places in airports, completely unprotected from a terrorist attack -- a terrorist attack that would serve the same purpose (shutting down air travel) as an attack on board an aircraft. I really wish people would stop pointing this out. Yes, it's probably true, the TSA screening site is a soft juicy target. Yes, you're very clever for pointing it out. Now pipe down about it before you give someone some ideas.
- powellc 16y ago
  Yeah, because there all those potential terrorists are wringing their hands wondering what to do next..."Ah! The newest edition of Atlantic Monthly. This shall give me some inspiration!" Given the state of international relations, this scenario is really a question of 'when' and not 'if.'
- psadauskas 16y ago
  I just hope the TSA figures it out before someone with a bomb does.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    What can they do? There's gonna be a line somewhere. And most airports don't have room to make it straight instead of coiled. Ultimately what we can't do is to entirely rejig our society to prevent people from being densely packed in any place at any time just in case somebody decides to set off a bomb. The best thing we can do is to keep suicide bombers fixated on hard targets like aeroplanes so they forget about soft targets like... well, whatever.
    - psadauskas 16y ago
      How about we just give up on the whole farce altogether? The TSA isn't making airplanes any safer from bombers, period. Think about it: If they'd had a single success, just one instance where they stopped someone from doing something bad, they'd be screaming it from the rooftops every chance they got. Since they're not, and we haven't heard of anything more malicious than grandmothers with nailclippers, I think its safe to say that the TSA hasn't done a damn thing.
VladRussian 16y ago
one doesn't need to be a psychologist to see author's fixation on "something up the ass"
- philwelch 16y ago
  He seemed a little more interested in something up the vagina, if that makes you feel any better.
- mhb 16y ago
  Either that or getting someone to read his articles.
motters 16y ago
The whole thing seems highly creepy. I suspect that the advanced pat downs will eventually be removed and there will be no option but to go through the machine, because the prospect of some member of airport staff doing advanced pat downs on children has obviously dodgy implications which could attract lawsuits and some very unpleasant job applicants. As the article says, a determined terrorist will get through either of these procedures anyhow.
philwelch 16y ago
The pat down vs. backscatter machine issue is interesting because it opens up so many avenues for nonviolent resistance (most of which would be far more effective if you got a bunch of people together to do it all at once at one major airport): 1. If your kids go through the machine, loudly accuse the TSA of child pornography. If your kids go through the patdown, loudly accuse the TSA of child molestation. (If you have a suitably eccentric or sympathetic local law enforcement head, like a county sheriff, this might be the way to go, but there's probably some sort of federal immunity against actual prosecution.) 2. Upon entering security, strip completely naked. 3. Opt for the pat down and take a dive, claiming the screener hurt your testicles. 4. Opt for the pat down; pretend to enjoy it. Note that, like most forms of nonviolent resistance, many of these can get you arrested or at least stop you from making your flight. Getting arrested to make a point is a proud tradition, however. And unlike a mere protest, these kinds of actions can sabotage the TSA or potentially cripple air travel if you get a large enough coordinated protest.
- jcromartie 16y ago
  > 2. Upon entering security, strip completely naked. It would be amazing to get a campaign going of people doing this.
  - tertius 16y ago
    Then the whole purpose of the porno machine is moot. You'll have porno without the machine.
    - sp332 16y ago
      It's just a reminder to everyone of the view that guy/lady in the booth has. "This is how the security agent sees you."
- tallanvor 16y ago
  For #4, depending on who is doing the pat down, you might not have to pretend to enjoy it.
meelash 16y ago
How far out to sea does one have to be for the TSA to not have jurisdiction? Has anyone thought of an airline that ferrys passengers out to a ship off the coast and the airplanes take off from there? How much does an aircraft carrier cost? It seems this would be extremely expensive, but then, airplanes themselves are extremely expensive so it kind of comes with the territory. But I wonder if we're talking orders of magnitude higher costs. Not sure how crazy of an idea this is; it came to mind and I figured I'd throw it out there. :)
- Aqua_Geek 16y ago
  I think the length of runway required to get a 747 off the ground would make this prohibitive (as if the cost of an aircraft carrier didn't already). Nimitz class carriers are just over 1,000 ft in length. A quick Google search reveals that a 747 needs about 6x that for safe takeoff/landing.
  - meelash 16y ago
    Yeah, turns out the cost is also more than an order of magnitude- an aircraft carrier is somewhere in the high single digit billions of dollars, where as your jumbo jet is in the hundreds of millions....
- dkasper 16y ago
  International waters start 12 miles from shore, so I'm pretty sure (but not positive) there would be no jurisdiction there. One of many problems is that a lot of places are not near an ocean, so that rules out an aircraft carrier :)
- philwelch 16y ago
  Ordinary aircraft aren't compatible with carriers--you need a tailhook to land, at the very least. You need significantly more talented pilots to land on carriers. You need billions of dollars in aircraft carriers. (The most extravagant navy in the world has about 12. How many carriers do you need to make an airline out of it?) The shock of catapult-assisted takeoff is not for everyone; the passengers would need to be in decent health. Add all of this to the fact that airlines are only marginally profitable in the first place, and it's just completely infeasible.
stevenp 16y ago
This article gets my up-vote just for his joke about calling his testicles "The Resistance" ala "The Situation" on Jersey Shore. I needed a good chuckle today.
runjake 16y ago
This isn't the kind of freedom I served my country for. If this article is true, it's a highly-disturbing downfall for American civil liberties.
mixmax 16y ago
the coiled, closely packed lines at TSA screening sites are the most dangerous places in airports, completely unprotected from a terrorist attack -- a terrorist attack that would serve the same purpose (shutting down air travel) as an attack on board an aircraft. I don't think this is true. The purpose of terrorism is to spread fear, the killing is only a byproduct. The reason hijackings and bombs on planes are so effective is that many people already fear planetrips. You're caught in a tin can that intuitively should drop to the ground instead of flying through the air ten kilometers above the ground with no way of getting out. The thought of a crazy guy with a bomb in his pants just waiting to detonate it makes the experience absolutely terrifying to a lot of people. They'll think about it every time the get on a plane even though the chance of dying in a terrorist attack is close to zero.
- elblanco 16y ago
  Of course the unsaid is that the TSAI is really just trying to protect those expensive metal flying tubes, not the people who fly in them. If you look at it from perspective, their policies seem rational and consistent.
- jamii 16y ago
  The IRA managed to cause plenty of fear by bombing shops and train stations. From Wikipedia: The Troubles' impact on the ordinary people of Northern Ireland produced such psychological trauma that the city of Belfast had been compared to London during the Blitz. [104] The stress resulting from bomb attacks, street disturbances, security checkpoints, and the constant military presence had the strongest effect on children and young adults. [105] In addition to the violence and intimidation, there was chronic unemployment and a severe housing shortage. Vandalism was also a major problem. In the 1970s there were 10,000 vandalised empty houses in Belfast alone. Most of the vandals were aged between eight and thirteen. [106] Activities for young people were limited, with pubs fortified and cinemas closed. Just to go shopping in the city centre required passing through security gates and being subjected to body searches.
ErrantX 16y ago
For kicks, a little while ago, I refused one of these machines (you can't really cause a "ruckus" too often when flying for work). The guy just shrugged, gave me a quick pat down and let me through. I'd say about 30% of the people took the same option and received the same treatment. Same every time since I've that I've been through. But the last time one guy made a big deal of how invasive the machine was (not rude, just loud about his refusal) and got the works (well, a rough pat down and then taken to one side). Obviously, this is a different case, he was just joking around with them. But I imagine this could easily have been a different story if one of the TSA officers couldn't handle a bit of humour (all too common, sadly). Just saying. These machines are a real problem for our privacy/society. But all the "horror" stories (not so much this one) we are seeing are mostly the result of people making a fuss, and getting rough treatment. We should just refuse these, politely and quietly, and at such a volume all they can do is what they have done previously; give us a pat down. Fortunately it looks like the UK air services are "rebelling" somewhat against "draconian security measures". It's not 100% certain what they are talking about, but I got the impression this covered resisting the spread of these machines in the UK. Which makes a change :)
- tptacek 16y ago
  I said the same thing a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, the story you're commenting on provides context that invalidates that point: the TSA has stepped up the intrusiveness of the "opt-out" pat-downs. According to Jeffrey Goldberg, who is probably not making this up, they are deliberately touching people's crotches in an effort to discourage people from taking the pat-down.
  - Silhouette 16y ago
    Fortunately, this sort of thing tends to attract the wrong kind of attention after a while. When enough people find your behaviour offensive enough, they will stop using your service. That will hit your bottom line, and that will make it bad for business. Maybe most people will tolerate this kind of abuse even if they don't like it, but even running 90% full planes instead of 100% is a serious dent in your profits in this sort of industry. Sadly, I suspect the comments by the various air industry executives in the UK over the past week or so are motivated more by falling profits than any ethical problem with these devices, but if the end result is the same in practice, I welcome their opposition anyway. Also, as someone pointed out on (I think) the BBC News story about those comments, it is not exactly in the airlines' interests to have their planes blown up. If we assume that the executives at such businesses are at least reasonably aware of the real effectiveness of these security measures, the fact that they are still now openly saying things have gone too far is quite telling.
karzeem 16y ago
I have a prosthetic leg, so I've been getting the secondary screening (i.e. pat-downs, bomb wipes, and wanding) for years. It's invasive, but the TSA agents don't grope your genitals. They don't even touch them. In fact, they're usually shy about touching "sensitive areas" (most of the inner thigh remains unexplored), and sometimes bordering on apologetic. I get that every single time I fly, and even so, I would never opt for a backscatter machine. It's far more invasive. Having been through dozens of patdowns, I feel pretty sure that someone looking at a naked picture of me is a worse option.
- cjbprime 16y ago
  The point of the linked article is that this is changing, and the TSA agents are now instructed to grope your genitals.
ckinnan 16y ago
EPIC is fighting the machines in court and online. They have an incident report page: http://epic.org/bodyscanner/incident_report/ http://epic.org/bodyscanner/incident_report/
- miles 16y ago
  Check out their "Stop Whole Body Imaging" page as well: http://www.stopdigitalstripsearches.org/ http://www.stopdigitalstripsearches.org/
sliverstorm 16y ago
You know, I have a hard time caring much about this issue. I'm just not that attached to the privacy of my clothing. I'm no stripper/streaker, but so what if somebody sees me with my clothes off? They certainly won't be the first, or the last. Hell, it's just a little extra incentive to keep myself healthy, so I look good when I go through ;)
- watchandwait 16y ago
  You are missing the point. This debate is about freedom and dignity, and not having to cow naked before government agents to simply take a domestic flight. With these machines, America is less free.
bugsy 16y ago
Now that the feds have the legal right to grope everyone's testicles and vagina without a warrant, this is a pretty good job for pedophiles and perverts to take. If you are a pedophile or pervert, where else do you have not just the legal right but the obligation to grope the sexual parts of the general public and be called a hero for doing so.
- corin_ 16y ago
  Not many people calling them heros here...
corin_ 16y ago
As good as this article is, the reason I'm most glad I read it is for its link to his other article (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/the-things-he-carried/7057/1/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/the-thin...) In my experience, one of the most illogical things is the difference in security in different countries. Back when I bought a Zippo lighter for the first time I flew from London to Paris. On the way out, I packed the Zippo in my suitcase, and just kept a disposable lighter in my pocket. As they let me keep it, on the way back I kept the Zippo in my pocket and was once again allowed to keep it. The following week, a return flight to Berlin, and on the way back the Germans confiscated the Zippo. It pissed me off, naturally, but just seems stupid - the same flight, with the same two cities at each end, and different rules for what you can take on depending on which direction you're going. I've also noticed that security officers in America are much more friendly than pretty much any country I've been to in Europe or Asia. I was flying from London last year with a colleague, and while he was being patted down after the scanner beeped at him, I thought to myself that we had a few hours to kill, so decided to make a slightly stupid comment... "Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?" Yeah, that cost us about an hour. Sure, they were probably right to double check after that, but for sure they were, after a short time, just delaying us to piss us off. Flew out to LA a few weeks ago, and on arrival myself and three colleagues are waiting, having picked up are checked baggage, for the security screening. Three of us, a few places being our fourth in the line, look at each other and say "yeah, he's definitely going to get stopped." Sure enough, he was (he was wearing a black tshirt with a skull and crossbones on, a beanie hat, and carrying a sports holdall that looked, even to us, like it must surely contain drugs.) Being the idiot he is, when they pulled him over for a bag search he immediately said "I'm with them!" and pointed - we were immediately taken to one side, too. However, the officer searching our bags was incredibly friendly. Asked about what we were doing in LA, but took in to a level beyond the "look for suspiciousness" concept, continuing a 15 minute conversation about various things from what we were doing to video games (related to our time there), what games he liked, etc. Having not found anything really problematic, he did tell me that I had twice the limit of cigarettes I was allowed to bring in to the country (I had 400 with me from the duty-free, for my two weeks out there) - just told me that he was supposed to confiscate and fine me, but would let me off. (This was pretty lucky - I had known the limit but decided to take the risk, given $3/pack duty-free or $12+/pack in NYC.) That kind of friendliness would never be shown (in my experience) by UK staff, or any other country I've visited.
dholowiski 16y ago
Why not just opt out of TSA all together? Take a car, bus or train, and enjoy getting there. Or better yet for non-Americans, just don't visit the U.S.A. Problem solved.
- gonzopancho 16y ago
  I live in Hawaii.
  - dholowiski 16y ago
    Hm. Google maps suggests you take up kayaking.
whichdokta 16y ago
Cue fond personal memories of living in South Africa in the 80s... Used to be so bad you made sure to not wear jeans&t-shirt if you were going to fly just so you didn't get pulled off the line by the Uzi wielding thugs and miss your flight. Then they freed the great terrorist Nelson. Yeah, that's right... Here in .za we felt exactly the same way about him as you yanks do about the great terrorist Osama. Fast forward sixteen years later and guns are rarely visible in the airport, check-in is smooth as silk (though we seem to have inherited the idiocy with the water bottles from you) and the last time anything got blown up here was when I forgot an aubergine in the oven for too long. They're having y'all on. The thing with tyranny is that until someone says "no thank you" it grinds on relentlessly becoming more and more expensive to stop with each passing year.
- ceejayoz 16y ago
  > Yeah, that's right... Here in .za we felt exactly the same way about him as you yanks do about the great terrorist Osama. "We" being who, exactly?
  - whichdokta 16y ago
    Us middle class white folk who didn't understand what all the fuss was really about till years later.
    - ceejayoz 16y ago
      So... the folks who benefited from apartheid don't much like Nelson Mandela? That's /shocking/.
random42 16y ago
I wonder what gandhi would have to say/do on this.
- ceejayoz 16y ago
  I suspect he'd just walk.
nagrom 16y ago
If you want to upset the guard and if your ego can handle it, flirt with the security. As he pats you down, a little grunt and a roll of the shoulders as if involuntary. If you can manage it, a big smile and a wink when he finishes it so that his colleagues can see. Getting angry or offended will cause them to get aggressive in response, and they have procedures in place to deal with that. They almost certainly don't have a procedure in place for making them feel like they've just taken part in a little gay fondling.
smallresistence 16y ago
Reading this article, people are very worried about their naked image, but I couldn't care less. I hope that in the future man and woman are so honest that they don't care about their image, they will care about the conditions of life: work, children care, avoiding violence, communication, love and real passion. Products for self-beauty and for maximizing the size of the resistence organs will be no longer demanded. Let's hope that this happen soon, meanwhile people will be very worried about their resistence and faces.
kleiba 16y ago
I sometimes wonder: say we removed all of security controls at the airports - how many more terrorist attacks would we actually see?
iuguy 16y ago
It has been nearly 12 years since I've visited the US. I was hoping to go there in 2003 but unfortunately the TSA and DHS put a stop to that. I've made a conscious decision that I do not want to go to the United States if I'm going to be treated that way. As beautiful and wonderful the country and it's people are, it boils down to a choice. Either you're happy being subject to what in anywhere else would qualify as sexual assault or taking pornographic pictures, or you don't go. I choose not to go. Should all of this end I would love to go to New York, San Francisco, LA and the many other wonderful places in the USA, but until then I'm not happy to go. The only thing that would get me there would be specific unavoidable business. However, I would like to thank the TSA and DHS for the opportunities I have had to visit all over Canada (another great North American country with great people) and I'm hoping to hit the Carribean and Mexico next year. It's a definite loss for me that I may never return to the US, but I have to make a stand somewhere.
- TamDenholm 16y ago
  I pretty much feel the same as you, I would like to go to America but to me it's just not worth going through an American airport. The alternative ive come up with is to fly to Canada or Mexico and then drive into America where (as far as I know) there aren't these scanners.
- aarongough 16y ago
  Ditto. I've previously had to go through the US many time on my way from Canada to Australia. The next time I make that trip I will be paying extra to ensure a direct flight from Toronto to Australia. I will also be avoiding any other sort of travel to the US. It's not much in terms of a protest, but it's better than nothing...
danielnicollet 16y ago
What about trans-gender passengers? Will they bar a women with a penis from boarding her flight because she "seems to have a fake explosive penis between her legs". SFO is going to go down with this ;-)
miles 16y ago
Just donated $100 to EPIC's http://www.stopdigitalstripsearches.org/ http://www.stopdigitalstripsearches.org/ . Especially motivated by tptacek and bugsy's comments. If you find the choice between having your children sexually assaulted or digitally strip searched repugnant, I strongly urge you to donate as well. How can we even say "land of the free, home of the brave" with a straight face anymore?
- SapphireSun 16y ago
  I am totally against this increase in security because it's unnecessary and gives a security agency the idea that it has undue power over the people. However, I honestly don't understand why so many people are so pissed off at getting touched or seen. I feel like I'm comfortable with my sexuality and the nature of the invasiveness is a nonissue, it's merely the fact that it's escalated _again_.
ChristianMarks 16y ago
This will lead to the development of the testicular explosive, which goes off once the device is manhandled.
HilbertSpace 16y ago
For the problems discussed in this thread, we in the US and in this thread are failing to get a solution due heavily to our forgetting some crucial points. In a little more detail, we already have plenty of policy precedents to solve this whole problem of airport security, terrorism via airplanes, and terrorism in the US and against the US and to do so without the TSA or the DHS at all. In particular, there is the issue in this thread of infinite or some finite but large number number of ways a terrorist can attack us so that blocking each way after an instance of that way is unpromising, even in the long run. Well, we can get the infinite or large number down to just a few, maybe just one or zero, right away. So, with this background, we can get to the policy we need in just two steps: Step One. For a policy precedent, we can remember the "Bush doctrine" as in September 11, 2001 Statement by the President in His Address to the Nation 8:30 P.M. EDT as at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/print/20010911-16.html http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/200... "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." With more there is, also by President George W. Bush, September 20, 2001 Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People 9:00 P.M. EDT as at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/print/20010920-8.html http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/200... with "And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." Step Two. We need only to regard an act of terrorism against the US as an act of war against the US. We have plenty of policy precedents about war. Then the policy we need is simple: We don't defend against the attacks and, instead, retaliate against them and, thus, deter future attacks. With appropriate retaliation, we stand to need to retaliate against at most just a few, maybe just one or zero, attacks before all this nonsense of terrorism against the US just stops, at least for some decades. So, here is how we "retaliate" and, thus, deter: After each attack, we find the countries the terrorists came from, much as in "The Bush Doctrine" say that each such country committed an act of war against the US, declare war against that country, and win the war quickly. As soon as we discover an offending country, we make them "an offer they can't refuse": They pay horrendous reparations, e.g., that more than cover the current annual costs to the US of our present approach to airline security and of the DHS, etc. or we will level their government and most of their economic infrastructure within 24 hours, accepting collateral damage as a necessary part of war. And we are not joking. And, yes, "All cards are on the table.". We still have the SSBNs, ICBMs, B2s, and aircraft carriers, and no Muslim country has anything like any of these or any means at all to defend against them. We don't attempt to build a democracy in their country, don't occupy their country, and, really, don't even set foot in their country. We will have to destroy at most only a few sh!tpit countries. All the other relevant countries will make sure that anyone in their country, citizen or visitor, who even jokes about Jihad, gets a big crowd shouting "Death to America" (sounds like a declaration of war to me), etc. will be effectively re-educated, jailed, or just killed, maybe with their families, villages, etc. Wackozerostan with the Taliban? Level it, nearly all of it. Now. Further problems with Pashtun and Taliban in Pukistan? Same treatment. There are several pieces of good news for us here: (A) This terrorism stuff is essentially ONLY Muslim Jihad nonsense. Our policy will have the effect of turning Islam back into just a peaceful religion instead of some international, take over the world, political and military effort. We won't have to have our HUMINT recording and reviewing Mullah speeches because the local government will eagerly, as in we made them "an offer they can't refuse", do that for us. Just what is it about Islam actually being a "peaceful religion" the Muslim leaders won't be able to understand, e.g., after we level, really, take back to the Stone Age, Wackozerostan? The story goes that recently Hamid Karzai gave to Pervez Musharraf names, titles, addresses, and phone numbers of the Jihader leaders in Wackozerostan. Of course, Musharraf did nothing. So, we know what, who, and where the Jihader leaders are. So, kill'em. UBL? There are stories that he is still alive and in Pukistan near the border with China and, also, the main source of funds for the Taliban military efforts. So, find UBL and kill him. "That's what the bullets are for, you twit." Some Jihaders in India blew up a train. Supposedly some Hindus went to a Muslim neighborhood and devastated it and then leveled about 200 mosques. We could learn a lesson about what such people regard as "effective". Pretty? No. Strong enough? Maybe. So, for the US, one neighborhood and 200 mosques would be 201 GPS coordinates and maybe 201 cruise missiles. Easy enough, but we could do MUCH more. (B) The Muslim Jihaders have only really crude means of making war, which is NOT a reason for us not to retaliate, effectively. (C) There only a few countries that want to entertain Muslim Jihaders and, thus, only a few countries we will have to level or deter. (D) None of the Muslim countries can defend against being leveled by the US within 24 hours. (E) Our main problem is just that we are too eager to be nice, to mess up our own economy to be nice, and to be reluctant to take the retaliation we are fully able to take. As of just the last few days, near the top of the list is Yemen. Level it. Good riddance. It's time to put a stop to this Jihad nonsense. Quickly. Period. This Jihad terrorism is just war by another means. We in the US know a LOT about war; we're the unchallenged world champions at both offensive and defensive means of war; we are fully able to defend ourselves against the Jihad variety of war also. What we need to do is just a matter of defending ourselves. I'm sorry about war, but the Jihaders are making war against us; so, we need to defend ourselves. "Collateral damage"? That's what the Jihaders are doing to us. Collateral damage is part of war, certainly part of theirs, and now has to be part of ours. Otherwise we are back into letting Imams and Mullahs "hijack" a religion and turn it into an international political and military effort, mess up the US economy, kill Americans, and grow the international and military power of Islam. That the Jihaders are making war against us is their fault. If we let them continue without effectively defending ourselves, then that's our fault. We should not continue to let our suffering be our fault. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." It's time for the US to stop being fooled. Being so nice to them is NOT making them be nice to us. The Imams and Mullahs sending out Jihaders want POWER and are quite willing not to be nice about it. War is ugly. The only good response to war is to win it, and the usual way is by killing the enemy. Sorry 'bout that, but it's better that we win than lose. Net, the Imams, Mullahs, and their Jihaders will just continue on with their outrageous nonsense until they are stopped by some sufficiently effective means. Since they have been declaring and making war on us for some years, we need to stop them and to do so better now than later. If none of the above policy precedents convinces you, then we can return to some of the content of this thread: You will have to have your daughters groped by strangers, photographed in the nude and studied by strangers, and eventually cavity searched by strangers and where there is no effective guarantee of any clinical professionalism or privacy and no effective means of defense or retribution. Yes, the groper might have just gotten HIV on their glove and then given the virus to your daughter. Are you ready to defend the US now?
ax0n 16y ago
If I ever encounter a backscatter device, I'll ask for the frisk. Hey, I'm not the one who's gotta grope some stranger's junk.

259 points by timf 16y ago

It's hard to put into words how insane these are. Is the TSA merely a jobs program? Are the devices just corporate welfare? Is there an actual concerted effort by the inner party (who ride in carriages--private jets) to psychologically subjugate the middle class? Are policy makers actually under the impression that these are good rather than evil/ridiculous/unAmerican/insane? (???) Really? I mean, what is the simplest way to prevent another 9/11? Steel cockpit doors and a communications shutoff between cockpit and everything outside. No physical threats possible = no terrorism. Problem solved. But of course, terrorism isn't actually a problem and never was.

tptacek 16y ago
Yes. No. No. Yes. Yes. Agreed.
krschultz 16y ago
Not exactly. Recall prior to the hijacking being done by brute force on the pilots, most airline terrorism was bombs on planes. If we don't have any security what-so-ever, people could just bring hand grenades onto airplanes and I am 100% certain you could crash them that way. There is a safe middle ground here, and metal detectors were definitely in it. Full body scans? Not so much.
hugh3 16y ago
I mean, what is the simplest way to prevent another 9/11? Steel cockpit doors and a communications shutoff between cockpit and everything outside. Well you've still got the bomb-on-plane problem, which is what the latest three rounds of security increases have been in response to -- there was the shoe bomber, and then the liquid-mixture plot, and then the underpants bomber. You'll note that none of these plots worked. Why? Because they were increasingly shitty bombs. Why were they increasingly shitty bombs? Because they've been progressively closing loopholes. The underpants bomber might have been successful if he were shoe bomber number two, but he wasn't, because the bomb-in-shoe loophole has been closed. People like to use the words "security theater" a lot because it makes them feel clever, and yes, the TSA like any government department has its own particular forms of insanity. But there's actual security accomplished there too. In the 1980s it was possible to sneak a 747-destroying bomb into a plane in a suitcase... now they're reduced to sticking dynamite up their butts. Also, communications shutoff between the cockpit and outside is crazy. What happens when there's a medical emergency onboard? Let 'em die because the pilots aren't allowed to know about anything that happens in the passenger cabin?
- StavrosK 16y ago
  Out of curiosity, how many bombs in suitcases did we get back when people could do that?
  - confuzatron 16y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Airliner_bombings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Airliner_bombings I suppose the time when people could do that is at earliest, the most recent of those incidents.
- jcromartie 16y ago
  > the latest three rounds of security increases But there haven't been security increases! They are just targeting one of an infinite number of threats, making their coverage with each of these specific measures effectively zero. Remember: the 9/11 hijackers didn't need bombs.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    They are just targeting one of an infinite number of threats That's silly, there's a finite number of threats to airliners. Excluding external threats like missiles (which are themselves defended against by other agencies) you've got two basic avenues: bombs and hijackings. Hijackings require weapons. The first hijackers used guns, so the TSA (and other similar agencies around the world but I'll use the TSA as an example) made it hard to get guns on board. So the next round used knives. So the TSA made it hard to get knives on board. With the damn near impossibility of getting knives on board plus the fact that passengers in a hijacking are now much more inclined to fight back, hijacking is pretty much fully defended against. Bombings require bombs. The earliest bombers used suitcase bombs, which is ideal from their point of view because they can be very large. But security screening got better and suitcase bombs are too difficult nowadays. So they switched to shoe bombs. But now they're impossible. So they switched to underpants bombs. And with the latest (overly invasive) techniques that's more or less impossible too. The size of the largest bomb you can smuggle on board keeps decreasing, and the danger keeps getting smaller and smaller -- whatever you can stick up your butt it's never gonna blow a sizeable hole in the side of an airliner. It's a finite space of threats, and they're actually doing a pretty good job at defending against them. That's why since 9/11 there have been N foiled attempts to attack airliners, and zero successful ones (I think there was a Russian exception).
marclove 16y ago
It has nothing to do with jobs programs/corporate welfare. Remember there were security people before the TSA (just not as many) and the TSA was created in the post-9/11 panic. This, like most aviation security, is just security-theater. The American people were scared and so elected officials, realizing they couldn't realistically secure aviation, come up with a bunch of "procedures" that's supposed to make the general public feel more comfortable. In the end, it's about votes.
matwood 16y ago
I mean, what is the simplest way to prevent another 9/11? Steel cockpit doors and a communications shutoff between cockpit and everything outside. Another 9/11 scenario is going to be near impossible to pull off. Pre-9/11 hijackings often left the passengers with some hope of living through the situation so they would be docile and controllable. Post-9/11 passengers will not be docile and the hijackers will have to effectively control the entire plane with force. There is still run of the mill blow up the airplane style terrorism to watch out for, but that was around before 9/11 and will be around for long time after.

curtis 16y ago

* ... because the coiled, closely packed lines at TSA screening sites are the most dangerous places in airports, completely unprotected from a terrorist attack -- a terrorist attack that would serve the same purpose (shutting down air travel) as an attack on board an aircraft.* This is a good point, but I don't completely agree with it. If terrorists can smuggle a bomb on board an airplane, they can probably smuggle tools on board that will allow them to break into the cockpit. Then (as we've seen), the plane itself can be used as a very large bomb. (Note that I am not venturing an opinion on whether backscatter imagers are a solution to this problem or whether the invasion of privacy is worth it even if they are.)

tptacek 16y ago
In the history of air travel has anybody ever breached a secured airplane cockpit (of any sort?). To the extent that we're concerned about the security of cockpits, maybe our efforts are best directed towards better cockpit doors instead of strip-search machines.
- nodata 16y ago
  We already have better cockpit doors - _that_ is probably the only security measure since 9/11 that was a) a good idea, and b) worth the money.
  - curtis 16y ago
    Indeed we do. I don't know if it's the only new security measure that's a good idea, but I do think it's by far the most important one.
- Cushman 16y ago
  United Airlines Flight 93.
  - arst 16y ago
    Was the cockpit door on UA93 reinforced? I can't recall ever hearing/reading that.

bittermang 16y ago

I was hoping this was going to be an article about backlash, or a new approach to security screening. Instead, Resistance was literally a euphemism for the author's penis.

epochwolf 16y ago
> Instead, Resistance was literally a euphemism for the author's penis. I was under the impression it was his testicles. From the article: 'That's funny," I said, "because 'The Resistance' is the actual name I've given to my testicles."

jedwhite 16y ago

The dangerous thing about security theatre is that it distracts resources and personnel away from the things that would actually improve security, in the interests of PR and cosmetics based on inconveniencing the non-terrorists. As the author points out, detailed background checks would be far more effective than either looking at or touching people's privates.

io 16y ago
But would it be less of an invasion of our privacy?
- jedwhite 16y ago
  Yes. Simple background checks based on public records and customer history / credit checks are things that we already accept every time we deal with any financial institution or government agency. A programmatic check would exclude the vast majority of travellers as potential terrorists. And manual inspection by a junior intelligence analyst most of the rest, leaving senior analysts to evaluate more serious threat cases. That would be far less intrusive and far less invasive a procedure than violating the physical privacy of very many and in some cases every traveller, which is where this is already heading at several major airports.
  - darklajid 16y ago
    Hmm.. You mean like "Your dad is from Egypt, let's put a gps sender on your car and treat you 'special' at the airport from now on, since our background check thinks you're part of the target group"? Seriously, how would a background check work? What are you looking for? Ethnic background obviously would be the biggest failure (although still done, see above). Credit history? Police records (international? Good luck with that)? Either you disclose what you are looking at and "the bad guys" can trick your check. Or you don't and you're back on the security by obscurity road, doing "arbitrary" (to the public) things, annoying probably just as much. I think this idea is just as flawed as the current procedure. And I surely hope no one is starting something like that, since this whole security BS seems like a race of arms to me lately..

dougb 16y ago

I just called my congressman and senators. If you disagree with what the TSA is doing, I suggest you do the same.

swolchok 16y ago
Senators are Congressmen. Did you mean your representatives?
- ckinnan 16y ago
  Actually, by convention, Congressman or Congresswoman refers to the Representatives only.
  - swolchok 16y ago
    Congressman, n. A man who is a member of the U.S. Congress, especially of the House of Representatives. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/congressman http://www.thefreedictionary.com/congressman
nollidge 16y ago
Might want to wait a couple days to make sure your congresspeople still have their jobs...

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

The situation with TSA is becoming more farcical by the week. I keep waiting for some grownup to stand up and put some limits on what's acceptable for them to do, but then I realize that there basically is no limit. Nobody wants to be the person that stops this runaway train. It's enough to make me seriously consider whether I want to use commercial air travel again.

StavrosK 16y ago
Yeah, but what are you going to do if you're going overseas? Take a ship? :/
psadauskas 16y ago
I would love to stand up to it, but I'd really just rather get to my vacation place. If it didn't cost several hundred dollars for a plane ticket to get to that point, I would just drive down to the airport and do it. I guess we could all print fake boarding passes, though.
- mixmax 16y ago
  They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up. Martin Niemöller
  - sliverstorm 16y ago
    That's a quote about discrimination. I don't see how it applies; we are all being discriminated against equally in this case.
    - mixmax 16y ago
      It's a quote about standing up to tyranny, and the fact that if you don't speak up when someone else is discriminated against you may be next in line. I think it applies very well in this case.

hvs 16y ago

On the plus side, you can finally (kind of) make a stand against all of this security theater by opting for the pat-down: I'm not the one who has to touch some else's testicles. You want screen me? Then you have to do the dirty work.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

drags 16y ago

I always opt-out of the back-scatter machine, and none of the TSA officers at SFO or BOS have ever seemed to think it anything out of the ordinary. The impression I've gotten is that they see the two methods (pat-down and back-scatter) as relatively interchangeable, though the former is obviously more inconvenient for them.

tptacek 16y ago
They already have to do the pat-down for anyone who trips up the machines (or who can't, for instance because of implants or a wheelchair).

tptacek 16y ago

The pat-down is better than the machine. If my privacy is going to be invaded, I want to look the person doing it in the eyes. If I'm going to be embarassed, I want the agent embarassed too. The pat-downs are inconvenient. Systematized invasions of our most private things should be inconvenient. TSA agents are going to face a torrent of complaints alleging abuse, molestation, &c. Good. The whole program is abusive. What scares me is the faceless machine nobody cares about silently collecting naked pictures of every citizen, managed by people nobody will ever see who can never be held accountable for anything. You can't simply flip a switch and capture high fidelity copies of a pat-down search. You can with the machines. Incidentally: contrary to popular opinion, security agents, law enforcement, border control, &c all very much do care when complaints are filed on them. Their M.O. is that nobody takes the time to file those complaints. They're counting on people not bothering with the pat-down because the machine seems more convenient, and they're counting on not dealing with a flood of complaints. I plan on filing a complaint at the first hint of an off-color comment about what they're doing. "Better get new gloves, Fred!" --- "I'd like your name and your supervisor's name, now."

bdimcheff 16y ago
I feel like we need a script to recite when demanding a patdown that explains to all the people around us why the porno machines and the whole process is so objectionable. And request to have the patdown out in the open so people can see what you're willing to put up with to avoid going through the scanner.
- nodata 16y ago
  I thank that would be a good idea. But it needs to be catchy. At least where I am the "naked body scanner" phrase seems to have caught on (or at least be understood).
- asmithmd1 16y ago
  Potential names for back scatter machine: Strip search Electronic strip search Virtual strip search Anonymous strip search

jdvolz 16y ago

I am wondering how long it is before people who like to get felt up are using this as there way to get their jollies. I'm also wondering how long it before someone sues the TSA for improperly touching them (too long, suggestively, etc.) or for injuring them (moving too fast and bumping the resistance). Edit: I hadn't even considered that maybe people who like to feel others up with sign up to work for the TSA

Mithrandir 16y ago

According to ABC News [1], these new "pat-downs" will not likely prevent someone like the Underwear Bomber from boarding. 1: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/tsa-pat-procedure-airports/story?id=11998304&page=2 http://abcnews.go.com/WN/tsa-pat-procedure-airports/story?id...

geuis 16y ago

So I'm just wondering, what if you're a parent flying with children? I don't have kids, so I don't know what the rules are for TSA screening of them. To me, it sounds like as a parent you either have the choice of letting some anonymous person in another room take naked pictures of your kids, or you have to let some strange man/woman touch and grope your children until they meet 'resistance'. In the meantime, metal detectors are in place but it seems like there's some move to phase these out. And when I have kids, if some government minimum wage flunky thinks they're going to grope my daughter or son, my wife will be posting bail for me soon thereafter.

tptacek 16y ago
I'm flying with my kids in a few months; my plan is to simply record the whole thing with my iPhone (you may see me in the news shortly thereafter). If my son gets upset, I plan to tell him "this is why you're going to take trig seriously; do bad in school and you might end up with this crappy job". The pat-down is better than the machine. Even for kids. Maybe especially for kids. If you're going to violate my kids privacy, you'd better believe I'm going to want to be in the actual room.
- dmethvin 16y ago
  > If my son gets upset, I plan to tell him "this is why you're going to take trig seriously; do bad in school and you might end up with this crappy job". That is a horribly disrespectful thing to say in front of someone who is doing their job. Would you say something like that to a proctologist as they stuck a finger up your butt? I doubt the TSA people like this either, perhaps some will even resign over it. But that person has a job and they are doing it as they are instructed to do. That is the job they use to pay their rent and bills, so that they won't need to go on the dole and have their bills paid by your trig-savvy son. Bitch about the policy all you want, and do what you think needs to be done to change it. But don't belittle the TSA worker, they can't change anything.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    If you have the job that forces you to feel up the crotches of children in order to encourage their parents to send them through a machine that takes naked pictures of them without probable cause of having committed any crime, then I suggest you quit that job. Are plenty of hardworking people going to have their feelings and self esteem hurt by this process? Good. Systemetized violations of our most private areas should cause all sorts of pain. I might feel differently if these were sworn law enforcement officers we're talking about, for a number of reasons. I'm generally very respectful of law enforcement. Fortunately (or not), I'm not forced to confront that conundrum, since these aren't police officers, but low-skilled "security" contractors whose sole purpose is to harass citizens in order to create the illusion of control. By the way, in the history of all-time worst rationalizations for behavior, do we even need to talk about "that person has a job and they are doing it as they are instructed to do"?

ibejoeb 16y ago

(Not-so-farfetched) conspiracy theory alert This has new policy hit a wall with the press and has gotten nothing by negative writeups. When it was announced, I made a statement, as did many others, that there would very soon be an "incident" that would let this cure. That appears to be happening right now with this worldwide blitz on Yemeni packages. One and done. Two things here are very unfortunate: 1. This is one of those huge media events that take all the front page space and interrupt network programming. It's going to instil fear in some population and give merit to the security theater. 2. Interestingly, given that this is supposedly cargo, we're still not talking about systematically scrutinizing cargo. Even so, in a political context, I don't think anyone is going to sufficiently separate the two. Right now, the big lines are Richard Reid and Christmas Day Bomber. No matter what happens now--letters to Congress, TSA abuse reports, journalistic stunts--I fully expect to get my bread buttered at the airport. One more thing: there's a good post on the front page about incentives. How about a tax break for fondling or photo shoot on has to endure? Let's provide disincentives for the Fed to keep this up.

tptacek 16y ago
That is a far-fetched conspiracy, especially compared to the direct, obvious, immediate tactical simplicity of "send crazy shit to the US to make them overreact at great cost to themselves" for terrorist groups.
- ibejoeb 16y ago
  Really? You don't think governments pull PR stunts too?

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

hugh3 16y ago

powellc 16y ago
Yeah, because there all those potential terrorists are wringing their hands wondering what to do next..."Ah! The newest edition of Atlantic Monthly. This shall give me some inspiration!" Given the state of international relations, this scenario is really a question of 'when' and not 'if.'
psadauskas 16y ago
I just hope the TSA figures it out before someone with a bomb does.
- hugh3 16y ago
  What can they do? There's gonna be a line somewhere. And most airports don't have room to make it straight instead of coiled. Ultimately what we can't do is to entirely rejig our society to prevent people from being densely packed in any place at any time just in case somebody decides to set off a bomb. The best thing we can do is to keep suicide bombers fixated on hard targets like aeroplanes so they forget about soft targets like... well, whatever.
  - psadauskas 16y ago
    How about we just give up on the whole farce altogether? The TSA isn't making airplanes any safer from bombers, period. Think about it: If they'd had a single success, just one instance where they stopped someone from doing something bad, they'd be screaming it from the rooftops every chance they got. Since they're not, and we haven't heard of anything more malicious than grandmothers with nailclippers, I think its safe to say that the TSA hasn't done a damn thing.

VladRussian 16y ago

one doesn't need to be a psychologist to see author's fixation on "something up the ass"

philwelch 16y ago
He seemed a little more interested in something up the vagina, if that makes you feel any better.
mhb 16y ago
Either that or getting someone to read his articles.

motters 16y ago

The whole thing seems highly creepy. I suspect that the advanced pat downs will eventually be removed and there will be no option but to go through the machine, because the prospect of some member of airport staff doing advanced pat downs on children has obviously dodgy implications which could attract lawsuits and some very unpleasant job applicants. As the article says, a determined terrorist will get through either of these procedures anyhow.

philwelch 16y ago

The pat down vs. backscatter machine issue is interesting because it opens up so many avenues for nonviolent resistance (most of which would be far more effective if you got a bunch of people together to do it all at once at one major airport): 1. If your kids go through the machine, loudly accuse the TSA of child pornography. If your kids go through the patdown, loudly accuse the TSA of child molestation. (If you have a suitably eccentric or sympathetic local law enforcement head, like a county sheriff, this might be the way to go, but there's probably some sort of federal immunity against actual prosecution.) 2. Upon entering security, strip completely naked. 3. Opt for the pat down and take a dive, claiming the screener hurt your testicles. 4. Opt for the pat down; pretend to enjoy it. Note that, like most forms of nonviolent resistance, many of these can get you arrested or at least stop you from making your flight. Getting arrested to make a point is a proud tradition, however. And unlike a mere protest, these kinds of actions can sabotage the TSA or potentially cripple air travel if you get a large enough coordinated protest.

jcromartie 16y ago
> 2. Upon entering security, strip completely naked. It would be amazing to get a campaign going of people doing this.
- tertius 16y ago
  Then the whole purpose of the porno machine is moot. You'll have porno without the machine.
  - sp332 16y ago
    It's just a reminder to everyone of the view that guy/lady in the booth has. "This is how the security agent sees you."
tallanvor 16y ago
For #4, depending on who is doing the pat down, you might not have to pretend to enjoy it.

meelash 16y ago

How far out to sea does one have to be for the TSA to not have jurisdiction? Has anyone thought of an airline that ferrys passengers out to a ship off the coast and the airplanes take off from there? How much does an aircraft carrier cost? It seems this would be extremely expensive, but then, airplanes themselves are extremely expensive so it kind of comes with the territory. But I wonder if we're talking orders of magnitude higher costs. Not sure how crazy of an idea this is; it came to mind and I figured I'd throw it out there. :)

Aqua_Geek 16y ago
I think the length of runway required to get a 747 off the ground would make this prohibitive (as if the cost of an aircraft carrier didn't already). Nimitz class carriers are just over 1,000 ft in length. A quick Google search reveals that a 747 needs about 6x that for safe takeoff/landing.
- meelash 16y ago
  Yeah, turns out the cost is also more than an order of magnitude- an aircraft carrier is somewhere in the high single digit billions of dollars, where as your jumbo jet is in the hundreds of millions....
dkasper 16y ago
International waters start 12 miles from shore, so I'm pretty sure (but not positive) there would be no jurisdiction there. One of many problems is that a lot of places are not near an ocean, so that rules out an aircraft carrier :)
philwelch 16y ago
Ordinary aircraft aren't compatible with carriers--you need a tailhook to land, at the very least. You need significantly more talented pilots to land on carriers. You need billions of dollars in aircraft carriers. (The most extravagant navy in the world has about 12. How many carriers do you need to make an airline out of it?) The shock of catapult-assisted takeoff is not for everyone; the passengers would need to be in decent health. Add all of this to the fact that airlines are only marginally profitable in the first place, and it's just completely infeasible.

stevenp 16y ago

This article gets my up-vote just for his joke about calling his testicles "The Resistance" ala "The Situation" on Jersey Shore. I needed a good chuckle today.

runjake 16y ago

This isn't the kind of freedom I served my country for. If this article is true, it's a highly-disturbing downfall for American civil liberties.

mixmax 16y ago

the coiled, closely packed lines at TSA screening sites are the most dangerous places in airports, completely unprotected from a terrorist attack -- a terrorist attack that would serve the same purpose (shutting down air travel) as an attack on board an aircraft. I don't think this is true. The purpose of terrorism is to spread fear, the killing is only a byproduct. The reason hijackings and bombs on planes are so effective is that many people already fear planetrips. You're caught in a tin can that intuitively should drop to the ground instead of flying through the air ten kilometers above the ground with no way of getting out. The thought of a crazy guy with a bomb in his pants just waiting to detonate it makes the experience absolutely terrifying to a lot of people. They'll think about it every time the get on a plane even though the chance of dying in a terrorist attack is close to zero.

elblanco 16y ago
Of course the unsaid is that the TSAI is really just trying to protect those expensive metal flying tubes, not the people who fly in them. If you look at it from perspective, their policies seem rational and consistent.
jamii 16y ago
The IRA managed to cause plenty of fear by bombing shops and train stations. From Wikipedia: The Troubles' impact on the ordinary people of Northern Ireland produced such psychological trauma that the city of Belfast had been compared to London during the Blitz. [104] The stress resulting from bomb attacks, street disturbances, security checkpoints, and the constant military presence had the strongest effect on children and young adults. [105] In addition to the violence and intimidation, there was chronic unemployment and a severe housing shortage. Vandalism was also a major problem. In the 1970s there were 10,000 vandalised empty houses in Belfast alone. Most of the vandals were aged between eight and thirteen. [106] Activities for young people were limited, with pubs fortified and cinemas closed. Just to go shopping in the city centre required passing through security gates and being subjected to body searches.

ErrantX 16y ago

For kicks, a little while ago, I refused one of these machines (you can't really cause a "ruckus" too often when flying for work). The guy just shrugged, gave me a quick pat down and let me through. I'd say about 30% of the people took the same option and received the same treatment. Same every time since I've that I've been through. But the last time one guy made a big deal of how invasive the machine was (not rude, just loud about his refusal) and got the works (well, a rough pat down and then taken to one side). Obviously, this is a different case, he was just joking around with them. But I imagine this could easily have been a different story if one of the TSA officers couldn't handle a bit of humour (all too common, sadly). Just saying. These machines are a real problem for our privacy/society. But all the "horror" stories (not so much this one) we are seeing are mostly the result of people making a fuss, and getting rough treatment. We should just refuse these, politely and quietly, and at such a volume all they can do is what they have done previously; give us a pat down. Fortunately it looks like the UK air services are "rebelling" somewhat against "draconian security measures". It's not 100% certain what they are talking about, but I got the impression this covered resisting the spread of these machines in the UK. Which makes a change :)

tptacek 16y ago
I said the same thing a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, the story you're commenting on provides context that invalidates that point: the TSA has stepped up the intrusiveness of the "opt-out" pat-downs. According to Jeffrey Goldberg, who is probably not making this up, they are deliberately touching people's crotches in an effort to discourage people from taking the pat-down.
- Silhouette 16y ago
  Fortunately, this sort of thing tends to attract the wrong kind of attention after a while. When enough people find your behaviour offensive enough, they will stop using your service. That will hit your bottom line, and that will make it bad for business. Maybe most people will tolerate this kind of abuse even if they don't like it, but even running 90% full planes instead of 100% is a serious dent in your profits in this sort of industry. Sadly, I suspect the comments by the various air industry executives in the UK over the past week or so are motivated more by falling profits than any ethical problem with these devices, but if the end result is the same in practice, I welcome their opposition anyway. Also, as someone pointed out on (I think) the BBC News story about those comments, it is not exactly in the airlines' interests to have their planes blown up. If we assume that the executives at such businesses are at least reasonably aware of the real effectiveness of these security measures, the fact that they are still now openly saying things have gone too far is quite telling.

karzeem 16y ago

I have a prosthetic leg, so I've been getting the secondary screening (i.e. pat-downs, bomb wipes, and wanding) for years. It's invasive, but the TSA agents don't grope your genitals. They don't even touch them. In fact, they're usually shy about touching "sensitive areas" (most of the inner thigh remains unexplored), and sometimes bordering on apologetic. I get that every single time I fly, and even so, I would never opt for a backscatter machine. It's far more invasive. Having been through dozens of patdowns, I feel pretty sure that someone looking at a naked picture of me is a worse option.

cjbprime 16y ago
The point of the linked article is that this is changing, and the TSA agents are now instructed to grope your genitals.

ckinnan 16y ago

EPIC is fighting the machines in court and online. They have an incident report page: http://epic.org/bodyscanner/incident_report/ http://epic.org/bodyscanner/incident_report/

miles 16y ago
Check out their "Stop Whole Body Imaging" page as well: http://www.stopdigitalstripsearches.org/ http://www.stopdigitalstripsearches.org/

sliverstorm 16y ago

You know, I have a hard time caring much about this issue. I'm just not that attached to the privacy of my clothing. I'm no stripper/streaker, but so what if somebody sees me with my clothes off? They certainly won't be the first, or the last. Hell, it's just a little extra incentive to keep myself healthy, so I look good when I go through ;)

watchandwait 16y ago
You are missing the point. This debate is about freedom and dignity, and not having to cow naked before government agents to simply take a domestic flight. With these machines, America is less free.

bugsy 16y ago

Now that the feds have the legal right to grope everyone's testicles and vagina without a warrant, this is a pretty good job for pedophiles and perverts to take. If you are a pedophile or pervert, where else do you have not just the legal right but the obligation to grope the sexual parts of the general public and be called a hero for doing so.

corin_ 16y ago
Not many people calling them heros here...

corin_ 16y ago

As good as this article is, the reason I'm most glad I read it is for its link to his other article (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/the-things-he-carried/7057/1/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/the-thin...) In my experience, one of the most illogical things is the difference in security in different countries. Back when I bought a Zippo lighter for the first time I flew from London to Paris. On the way out, I packed the Zippo in my suitcase, and just kept a disposable lighter in my pocket. As they let me keep it, on the way back I kept the Zippo in my pocket and was once again allowed to keep it. The following week, a return flight to Berlin, and on the way back the Germans confiscated the Zippo. It pissed me off, naturally, but just seems stupid - the same flight, with the same two cities at each end, and different rules for what you can take on depending on which direction you're going. I've also noticed that security officers in America are much more friendly than pretty much any country I've been to in Europe or Asia. I was flying from London last year with a colleague, and while he was being patted down after the scanner beeped at him, I thought to myself that we had a few hours to kill, so decided to make a slightly stupid comment... "Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?" Yeah, that cost us about an hour. Sure, they were probably right to double check after that, but for sure they were, after a short time, just delaying us to piss us off. Flew out to LA a few weeks ago, and on arrival myself and three colleagues are waiting, having picked up are checked baggage, for the security screening. Three of us, a few places being our fourth in the line, look at each other and say "yeah, he's definitely going to get stopped." Sure enough, he was (he was wearing a black tshirt with a skull and crossbones on, a beanie hat, and carrying a sports holdall that looked, even to us, like it must surely contain drugs.) Being the idiot he is, when they pulled him over for a bag search he immediately said "I'm with them!" and pointed - we were immediately taken to one side, too. However, the officer searching our bags was incredibly friendly. Asked about what we were doing in LA, but took in to a level beyond the "look for suspiciousness" concept, continuing a 15 minute conversation about various things from what we were doing to video games (related to our time there), what games he liked, etc. Having not found anything really problematic, he did tell me that I had twice the limit of cigarettes I was allowed to bring in to the country (I had 400 with me from the duty-free, for my two weeks out there) - just told me that he was supposed to confiscate and fine me, but would let me off. (This was pretty lucky - I had known the limit but decided to take the risk, given $3/pack duty-free or $12+/pack in NYC.) That kind of friendliness would never be shown (in my experience) by UK staff, or any other country I've visited.

dholowiski 16y ago

Why not just opt out of TSA all together? Take a car, bus or train, and enjoy getting there. Or better yet for non-Americans, just don't visit the U.S.A. Problem solved.

gonzopancho 16y ago
I live in Hawaii.
- dholowiski 16y ago
  Hm. Google maps suggests you take up kayaking.

whichdokta 16y ago

Cue fond personal memories of living in South Africa in the 80s... Used to be so bad you made sure to not wear jeans&t-shirt if you were going to fly just so you didn't get pulled off the line by the Uzi wielding thugs and miss your flight. Then they freed the great terrorist Nelson. Yeah, that's right... Here in .za we felt exactly the same way about him as you yanks do about the great terrorist Osama. Fast forward sixteen years later and guns are rarely visible in the airport, check-in is smooth as silk (though we seem to have inherited the idiocy with the water bottles from you) and the last time anything got blown up here was when I forgot an aubergine in the oven for too long. They're having y'all on. The thing with tyranny is that until someone says "no thank you" it grinds on relentlessly becoming more and more expensive to stop with each passing year.

ceejayoz 16y ago
> Yeah, that's right... Here in .za we felt exactly the same way about him as you yanks do about the great terrorist Osama. "We" being who, exactly?
- whichdokta 16y ago
  Us middle class white folk who didn't understand what all the fuss was really about till years later.
  - ceejayoz 16y ago
    So... the folks who benefited from apartheid don't much like Nelson Mandela? That's /shocking/.

random42 16y ago

I wonder what gandhi would have to say/do on this.

ceejayoz 16y ago
I suspect he'd just walk.

nagrom 16y ago

If you want to upset the guard and if your ego can handle it, flirt with the security. As he pats you down, a little grunt and a roll of the shoulders as if involuntary. If you can manage it, a big smile and a wink when he finishes it so that his colleagues can see. Getting angry or offended will cause them to get aggressive in response, and they have procedures in place to deal with that. They almost certainly don't have a procedure in place for making them feel like they've just taken part in a little gay fondling.

smallresistence 16y ago

Reading this article, people are very worried about their naked image, but I couldn't care less. I hope that in the future man and woman are so honest that they don't care about their image, they will care about the conditions of life: work, children care, avoiding violence, communication, love and real passion. Products for self-beauty and for maximizing the size of the resistence organs will be no longer demanded. Let's hope that this happen soon, meanwhile people will be very worried about their resistence and faces.

kleiba 16y ago

I sometimes wonder: say we removed all of security controls at the airports - how many more terrorist attacks would we actually see?

iuguy 16y ago

It has been nearly 12 years since I've visited the US. I was hoping to go there in 2003 but unfortunately the TSA and DHS put a stop to that. I've made a conscious decision that I do not want to go to the United States if I'm going to be treated that way. As beautiful and wonderful the country and it's people are, it boils down to a choice. Either you're happy being subject to what in anywhere else would qualify as sexual assault or taking pornographic pictures, or you don't go. I choose not to go. Should all of this end I would love to go to New York, San Francisco, LA and the many other wonderful places in the USA, but until then I'm not happy to go. The only thing that would get me there would be specific unavoidable business. However, I would like to thank the TSA and DHS for the opportunities I have had to visit all over Canada (another great North American country with great people) and I'm hoping to hit the Carribean and Mexico next year. It's a definite loss for me that I may never return to the US, but I have to make a stand somewhere.

TamDenholm 16y ago
I pretty much feel the same as you, I would like to go to America but to me it's just not worth going through an American airport. The alternative ive come up with is to fly to Canada or Mexico and then drive into America where (as far as I know) there aren't these scanners.
aarongough 16y ago
Ditto. I've previously had to go through the US many time on my way from Canada to Australia. The next time I make that trip I will be paying extra to ensure a direct flight from Toronto to Australia. I will also be avoiding any other sort of travel to the US. It's not much in terms of a protest, but it's better than nothing...

danielnicollet 16y ago

What about trans-gender passengers? Will they bar a women with a penis from boarding her flight because she "seems to have a fake explosive penis between her legs". SFO is going to go down with this ;-)

miles 16y ago

Just donated $100 to EPIC's http://www.stopdigitalstripsearches.org/ http://www.stopdigitalstripsearches.org/ . Especially motivated by tptacek and bugsy's comments. If you find the choice between having your children sexually assaulted or digitally strip searched repugnant, I strongly urge you to donate as well. How can we even say "land of the free, home of the brave" with a straight face anymore?

SapphireSun 16y ago
I am totally against this increase in security because it's unnecessary and gives a security agency the idea that it has undue power over the people. However, I honestly don't understand why so many people are so pissed off at getting touched or seen. I feel like I'm comfortable with my sexuality and the nature of the invasiveness is a nonissue, it's merely the fact that it's escalated _again_.

ChristianMarks 16y ago

This will lead to the development of the testicular explosive, which goes off once the device is manhandled.

HilbertSpace 16y ago

For the problems discussed in this thread, we in the US and in this thread are failing to get a solution due heavily to our forgetting some crucial points. In a little more detail, we already have plenty of policy precedents to solve this whole problem of airport security, terrorism via airplanes, and terrorism in the US and against the US and to do so without the TSA or the DHS at all. In particular, there is the issue in this thread of infinite or some finite but large number number of ways a terrorist can attack us so that blocking each way after an instance of that way is unpromising, even in the long run. Well, we can get the infinite or large number down to just a few, maybe just one or zero, right away. So, with this background, we can get to the policy we need in just two steps: Step One. For a policy precedent, we can remember the "Bush doctrine" as in September 11, 2001 Statement by the President in His Address to the Nation 8:30 P.M. EDT as at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/print/20010911-16.html http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/200... "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." With more there is, also by President George W. Bush, September 20, 2001 Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People 9:00 P.M. EDT as at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/print/20010920-8.html http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/200... with "And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." Step Two. We need only to regard an act of terrorism against the US as an act of war against the US. We have plenty of policy precedents about war. Then the policy we need is simple: We don't defend against the attacks and, instead, retaliate against them and, thus, deter future attacks. With appropriate retaliation, we stand to need to retaliate against at most just a few, maybe just one or zero, attacks before all this nonsense of terrorism against the US just stops, at least for some decades. So, here is how we "retaliate" and, thus, deter: After each attack, we find the countries the terrorists came from, much as in "The Bush Doctrine" say that each such country committed an act of war against the US, declare war against that country, and win the war quickly. As soon as we discover an offending country, we make them "an offer they can't refuse": They pay horrendous reparations, e.g., that more than cover the current annual costs to the US of our present approach to airline security and of the DHS, etc. or we will level their government and most of their economic infrastructure within 24 hours, accepting collateral damage as a necessary part of war. And we are not joking. And, yes, "All cards are on the table.". We still have the SSBNs, ICBMs, B2s, and aircraft carriers, and no Muslim country has anything like any of these or any means at all to defend against them. We don't attempt to build a democracy in their country, don't occupy their country, and, really, don't even set foot in their country. We will have to destroy at most only a few sh!tpit countries. All the other relevant countries will make sure that anyone in their country, citizen or visitor, who even jokes about Jihad, gets a big crowd shouting "Death to America" (sounds like a declaration of war to me), etc. will be effectively re-educated, jailed, or just killed, maybe with their families, villages, etc. Wackozerostan with the Taliban? Level it, nearly all of it. Now. Further problems with Pashtun and Taliban in Pukistan? Same treatment. There are several pieces of good news for us here: (A) This terrorism stuff is essentially ONLY Muslim Jihad nonsense. Our policy will have the effect of turning Islam back into just a peaceful religion instead of some international, take over the world, political and military effort. We won't have to have our HUMINT recording and reviewing Mullah speeches because the local government will eagerly, as in we made them "an offer they can't refuse", do that for us. Just what is it about Islam actually being a "peaceful religion" the Muslim leaders won't be able to understand, e.g., after we level, really, take back to the Stone Age, Wackozerostan? The story goes that recently Hamid Karzai gave to Pervez Musharraf names, titles, addresses, and phone numbers of the Jihader leaders in Wackozerostan. Of course, Musharraf did nothing. So, we know what, who, and where the Jihader leaders are. So, kill'em. UBL? There are stories that he is still alive and in Pukistan near the border with China and, also, the main source of funds for the Taliban military efforts. So, find UBL and kill him. "That's what the bullets are for, you twit." Some Jihaders in India blew up a train. Supposedly some Hindus went to a Muslim neighborhood and devastated it and then leveled about 200 mosques. We could learn a lesson about what such people regard as "effective". Pretty? No. Strong enough? Maybe. So, for the US, one neighborhood and 200 mosques would be 201 GPS coordinates and maybe 201 cruise missiles. Easy enough, but we could do MUCH more. (B) The Muslim Jihaders have only really crude means of making war, which is NOT a reason for us not to retaliate, effectively. (C) There only a few countries that want to entertain Muslim Jihaders and, thus, only a few countries we will have to level or deter. (D) None of the Muslim countries can defend against being leveled by the US within 24 hours. (E) Our main problem is just that we are too eager to be nice, to mess up our own economy to be nice, and to be reluctant to take the retaliation we are fully able to take. As of just the last few days, near the top of the list is Yemen. Level it. Good riddance. It's time to put a stop to this Jihad nonsense. Quickly. Period. This Jihad terrorism is just war by another means. We in the US know a LOT about war; we're the unchallenged world champions at both offensive and defensive means of war; we are fully able to defend ourselves against the Jihad variety of war also. What we need to do is just a matter of defending ourselves. I'm sorry about war, but the Jihaders are making war against us; so, we need to defend ourselves. "Collateral damage"? That's what the Jihaders are doing to us. Collateral damage is part of war, certainly part of theirs, and now has to be part of ours. Otherwise we are back into letting Imams and Mullahs "hijack" a religion and turn it into an international political and military effort, mess up the US economy, kill Americans, and grow the international and military power of Islam. That the Jihaders are making war against us is their fault. If we let them continue without effectively defending ourselves, then that's our fault. We should not continue to let our suffering be our fault. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." It's time for the US to stop being fooled. Being so nice to them is NOT making them be nice to us. The Imams and Mullahs sending out Jihaders want POWER and are quite willing not to be nice about it. War is ugly. The only good response to war is to win it, and the usual way is by killing the enemy. Sorry 'bout that, but it's better that we win than lose. Net, the Imams, Mullahs, and their Jihaders will just continue on with their outrageous nonsense until they are stopped by some sufficiently effective means. Since they have been declaring and making war on us for some years, we need to stop them and to do so better now than later. If none of the above policy precedents convinces you, then we can return to some of the content of this thread: You will have to have your daughters groped by strangers, photographed in the nude and studied by strangers, and eventually cavity searched by strangers and where there is no effective guarantee of any clinical professionalism or privacy and no effective means of defense or retribution. Yes, the groper might have just gotten HIV on their glove and then given the virus to your daughter. Are you ready to defend the US now?

ax0n 16y ago

If I ever encounter a backscatter device, I'll ask for the frisk. Hey, I'm not the one who's gotta grope some stranger's junk.