●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load 500 More Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byjhoegl ( 638955 ) writes:
"Think of the children" actually gets people to listen.
Not the groping, not the invasion of someone putting their hands on you (think about those that hate being touched, or fear of germs, etc), or 3d images of your body for all to see.
Nope, its fear of pediophilia and children being touched.
We have come far.
bySuperKendall ( 25149 ) writes:
Nope, its fear of pediophilia and children being touched.
We have come far.
We have come far.
But the thing is, people groping children is utterly senseless and, to many people, disgusting. There is no way to defend or condone it.
That is why people are against it, not of some odd pedophile fear but because it's stupid and gross.
byDJRumpy ( 1345787 ) writes:
Considering they use the back of their hands, it wouldn't call it 'groping'. The media likes to incite the locals with such terminology but the pat downs are pretty benign. In this case she simply didn't want to put her child through the scanner. As far as I can tell from TFA, she never even got to the point where they offered to do a pat down instead.
byfrosty_tsm ( 933163 ) writes:
Considering they use the back of their hands, it wouldn't call it 'groping'. The media likes to incite the locals with such terminology but the pat downs are pretty benign. In this case she simply didn't want to put her child through the scanner. As far as I can tell from TFA, she never even got to the point where they offered to do a pat down instead.
Next time you are out in public, touch a woman in a sensitive spot with the back of your hand and see if she cares whether it was the front or back of your hand.
(and don't blame me if you get arrested)
byDJRumpy ( 1345787 ) writes:
Are you implying that these people go to the airport NOT expecting to be scanned or searched? This is hardly the same as walking up to a stranger on the street and they randomly grope you. They go to the airport, stand in line watching the hundreds before them go through the same process. You'd have to live under a rock as well as being blind to not know what was going to happen.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byprofplump ( 309017 ) writes:
So if you first called a woman at home and told her you were going to grope her, then waited for her to head out to the bus stop and molested her there (using the back of your hands), that would be okay? It's just a matter of advanced notice and using the back your hand?
byDJRumpy ( 1345787 ) writes:
So now a TSA pat down is equivalent to being molested? I'm sure people who've actually been molested might take issue with that. I've been 'patted down'. It was hardly traumatizing. If someone has an issue with it, they should take another means of transport. They aren't forced to fly.
byJordanL ( 886154 ) writes:
What a complete non-sequitur. It doesn't matter if there are other options for travel... the TSA is a GOVERNMENT agency. Their actions are subject to review, criticism and most importantly CHANGE when they do not represent the people they serve.
Who the fuck cares about the semantics? What we have here is a bureaucracy that has decided it is smarter than the people it serves, which is a situation that should always be challenged by those who desire freedom.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byMobileTatsu-NJG ( 946591 ) writes:
They aren't forced to fly.
Right, try travelling around the US without using a plane.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bypongo000 ( 97357 ) writes:
Right, try travelling around the US without using a plane.
I do it all the time. I'll drive 3000 miles on vacation before I submit to inane security policies. Oh, and I choose not to have a job that requires me to fly. Yes, it is possible to travel around the US without using a plane.
byMobileTatsu-NJG ( 946591 ) writes:
3,000 miles? On a 14-day vacation you've spent 6 days travelling.
byflappinbooger ( 574405 ) writes:
There is a significant driving distance where you are break even with flying once you figure in all the time wasting parts of air travel. But east coast to west coast is simply just not feasible with driving. Takes too long. For me anyway. I do applaud you for sticking by your guns. OH wait, that's a red flag word. Never mind.
I knew of someone who had a fear of flying and the employer would let her use trains and plan the trips accordingly, as she sometimes did have to travel. It worked, barely, as I recal
bytftp ( 111690 ) writes:
3,000 miles? On a 14-day vacation you've spent 6 days travelling.
Traveling by a car is a part of vacation. You see places, people, dine in towns that you never saw. Basically you see the world.
But traveling by an airplane is a boring chore. Not only you have to worry about getting to the airport and from it. You have to go through the indignity of an illegal search by TSA; then you are herded into the airplane and lifted so high that you can't see anything down below - even if you sit by the window. But you can see (and hear) perfectly well the noisy children all around you, mountains of luggage everywhere, your legs that you have to fold in most unnatural way, etc. etc. As a free bonus you get a bit of ionizing radiation, and you get to share your sneezes with everybody else on the airplane. There is no restaurant you can spot and drive the airplane to; there is no food even.
I travel by car from time to time, and 400-500 miles per day is not a concern at all, easily doable between 9am and 5pm with a good lunch somewhere, in a spacious restaurant (even McD is spacious, compared to airplanes) and on terra firma. If I feel tired by the end of the day I can stop at any hotel I like. I can have as much luggage as I want but I don't need to carry any of it, and nobody is going to rummage through my bags. Traveling in your own castle is very comfortable.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byMobileTatsu-NJG ( 946591 ) writes:
Traveling by a car is a part of vacation. You see places, people, dine in towns that you never saw. Basically you see the world.
Heh. You find out that all those places are pretty much the same, driving 10 - 12 hours a day is a drag, everybody has to go to the bathroom often, and tempers shorten real fast.
But traveling by an airplane is a boring chore...
... that rarely lasts longer than 6 hours.
bytftp ( 111690 ) writes:
... that rarely lasts longer than 6 hours.
Those 6 hours are much longer than 12 hours you can spend driving on an excellent road. In the end of those 6 hours you see nothing, feel nothing, experience nothing. You just got delivered, blindfolded, from San Diego to NYC, and you have no clue what country lies in between. Perhaps that's how you want to travel for business, but a vacation suggests a better tactic, with emphasis on vacation and not on getting from point A to point B.
byMobileTatsu-NJG ( 946591 ) writes:
In the end of those 6 hours you see nothing, feel nothing, experience nothing. You just got delivered, blindfolded, from San Diego to NYC, and you have no clue what country lies in between.
You don't have a clue about what the country is like either if your family is bickering the entire time because they're bored out of their minds. Seriously, go watch Lampoon's Summer Vacation. The reason that movie's considered a classic is because that's how those trips really go.
Perhaps that's how you want to travel for business, but a vacation suggests a better tactic, with emphasis on vacation and not on getting from point A to point B.
Vacation's about fun. If you're fortunate enough to make the drive fun, great! Idaho, for example, is very pretty to drive through in the summer. Wyoming, however, is not. I've done these trips before and, I'm sorry, but th
byMobileTatsu-NJG ( 946591 ) writes:
Well, I'll put it to you this way: I spent 3 days driving from Kansas to Oregon, with a scenic detour up north far enough to hit Montana. I had a lot of fun.
Just wanted you to know that so you didn't think I was automatically just arguing with you. ;)
bycusco ( 717999 ) writes:
I hitchhiked from Seattle to Michigan back in the late '80s (possibly the last years it was still possible), and had a wonderful experience. If I had driven that route it would have been terrible. Today I fly, because who the hell wants to drive across Nebraska?
byPseudonym ( 62607 ) writes:
Traveling by a car is a part of vacation. You see places, people, dine in towns that you never saw. Basically you see the world.
I'm willing to bet that there's very little of this between where you live and Hawaii.
bychimpo13 ( 471212 ) writes:
I love traveling by motorcycle, or car when I'm with people. I enjoy travel more than destination in many ways. "Summer Vacation" was ruined for the Griswold's because it was about destination, not travel. Not that I ever had even thought about "What I learned from watching 'Summer Vacation'".
Wyoming is beautiful too. If you stay only on I-80 it's like you're on the moon, and if you're like me (which you aren't since you don't seem to like traveling), stay off the interstates and it's green and hilly depe
byLordKronos ( 470910 ) writes:
Right, try travelling around the US without using a plane.
I do it all the time. Since 2006, I've been to Maine, Tennessee, Wyoming, and a whole host of other places, yet the last time I was on a plane was 2005.
bymcgrew ( 92797 ) * writes:
The point is, you shouldn't have to avoid air travel! Damn it people, grow a pair and stand up!
Sorry, but this shit pisses me off.
byLordKronos ( 470910 ) writes:
The point is, you shouldn't have to avoid air travel!
No, I think the point was that you can't travel without taking a plane, and I was demonstrating that point is false. If you want to have some other conversation and make some other point, that's fine, but that's not what was going on here.
Damn it people, grow a pair and stand up!
Sorry, but this shit pisses me off.
Wait, so how exactly am I supposed to do that? What do I have to do to "grow a pair"? I thought the fact that I'm not giving into their searches IS standing up. What am I really supposed to do...take the plane, bitch about it endlessly, but in the end consent to the search
byjhoegl ( 638955 ) writes:
We are voting with our wallets in our "free market". This is supposed to be how it works, yes?
byCptNerd ( 455084 ) writes:
Yeah, I took the bus to Hawaii once, took forever. Drive a bit, come up for air, dive back down, drive a bit more, come up for air...
byRockDoctor ( 15477 ) writes:
Right, try travelling around the US without using a plane.
So ... those wars in the 1800s to evict the native Americans from their homes were pointless as well as impossible (because you can't travel around the US without using a plane. Lewis and Clark (spelling ? - it's not my history) were fraudsters (though to the North, MacKenzie, being an honest Scot and using a canoe could have covered much of Canada). Wagon trains were not dragged across the nation. Millions of trees were not felled for sleepers to l
bymcgrew ( 92797 ) * writes:
Better yet, how about we stop being a nation of cowards and accept the fact that nothing is safe? You;re in far more danger of being killed by a relative than by a terrorist!
Parent
twitter
facebook
bydgatwood ( 11270 ) writes:
Profiling - that's it! How about we LOOK AT PEOPLE, get some kind of idea who and what we THINK they might be, and go from there?
The problem is that they already do profiling. There's no other way to explain why I have been "randomly" singled out for this treatment nearly EVERY SINGLE TIME I have gone through Mineta San Jose Airport (including this very morning). It has gone so far beyond what would be considered acceptable by any reasonable person that I am currently seeking legal representation.
Even before today, I was already so fed up that I'm doing the vast majority of my travel this year by Amtrak. Unfortunately, due to scheduling constraints, this one trip required me to travel by plane for one leg. I'm taking Amtrak for the return trip. Henceforth, I will not be traveling by commercial airlines anymore within the continental United States until the TSA is disbanded. If I miss family funerals, so be it. If I miss other special events, that's life. I refuse to be degraded and humiliated as a precondition for travel.
To the Tea Party, want to cut $43.6 billion in government pork? Dissolve the TSA, fire everyone, and cancel all outstanding contracts to Rapiscan and L-3 Communications. Also, add a permanent ban on all future government contracts across the board for these two companies. They're dirty crooks who manipulate politicians into putting our people at risk and forcing the public to give up its fundamental legal right to free travel within our nation's borders, and that is something that simply cannot be tolerated.
Finally, may Satan reserve a special place in Hell for everyone involved in trying to force any parent to choose whether his or her child should be felt up by a stranger or irradiated. If that is what safety demands, then fuck safety. If the only way to be safe is to give up our most basic moral values, our most basic freedoms, and everything else that makes the United States better than some shithole dictatorship, then what are we bothering to fight terrorism for? If that is truly the price of freedom, then the United States that we know and love died and was buried on September 11, 2001, and we're just waiting for the fat lady to arrive to sing Ave Maria and give the eulogy.
God help us all.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byDuradin ( 1261418 ) writes:
If it means less screaming brats on the plane, it may be worth it.
byAntique Geekmeister ( 740220 ) writes:
There is actually a case where involuntary irradiation is acceptable to me, as a "free-thinking" adult. That is tuberculosis examiniations in schools when there's a local epidemic. It can be very helpful to detect low-level lung infections of various sorts. But that is for a directly measurable medical cause, and a targetd population.
Children can be very confused about personal boundaries: what is, and is not, acceptable play and physical interaction, is something adults and more mature children strive to t
bydgatwood ( 11270 ) writes:
TB examination, as you say, is potentially medically necessary, as the only real alternatives (doing nothing or applying prophylactic treatment to an unnecessarily large population) would be expected to cause significantly greater rates of illness and deaths in those children. Clearly, that's not the case for airport scanners by any stretch of the imagination, as I'm sure you'll agree.
As for fleeing refugees hiding money and jewels in child toys, that's well and good, but all that stuff goes through the X-
byryanov ( 193048 ) writes:
"Fewer" for things you can count.
byIronhandx ( 1762146 ) writes:
I've been molested, and I find it to be damn near the same thing.
To a child under 10 intent matters little, and to a lot of people it matters not at all. Its the event that is problematic.
Most children would have difficulty even distinguishing intent.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byL4t3r4lu5 ( 1216702 ) writes:
The difference here is the intent. You ascribe the sexual intent to the TSA agent because of your past experience, not because the current situation is overtly sexual in nature.
(FWIW, I agree with you, I just offer contrary opinion for the sake of discussion).
byIronhandx ( 1762146 ) writes:
Its not really a contrary opinion. You're just describing the only real difference between the two events, and its the one that I've already dismissed.
Some children under 10 can distinguish intent, and it probably won't harm those children, at least not much. Most can't, and it will harm them, somehow. Most likely it won't be apparent even to them until many years later. In some cases it won't ever be apparent to them but will have an effect on their lives and actions regardless.
bySteveFoerster ( 136027 ) writes:
If people aren't forced to fly, then why not tell those people who are so easily terrorized that they need unnecessary and invasive "security" screenings to feel safe that they're the ones who should go take the bus?
bycamperdave ( 969942 ) writes:
If people aren't forced to fly, then why not tell those people who are so easily terrorized that they need unnecessary and invasive "security" screenings to feel safe that they're the ones who should go take the bus?
Which bus is it, exactly, that goes from LA to Honolulu?
bySteveFoerster ( 136027 ) writes:
Why, the very same one that TSA thinks that those who don't appreciate their invasive security theater should take, of course.
bymcgrew ( 92797 ) * writes:
Yes, it is. Why are you defending these obnoxious violations of human dignity? We should not have to put up with this! WTF is wrong with you that you condone these violations of our rights? You, sir, are a sick coward.
byDrLang21 ( 900992 ) writes:
Maybe African American people should have found another means of transportation if they didn't like standing. Injustice should not be tolerated, even when you could technically avoid it.
byultranova ( 717540 ) writes:
Maybe African American people should have found another means of transportation if they didn't like standing.
They did.
bykwiqsilver ( 585008 ) writes:
You're not forced to go to the mall. Does that make it okay for the local cops at the mall to grope you as a requirement for entrance? Of course not!
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Reasonable? Nope!
Warrant issue
byJoce640k ( 829181 ) writes:
I've been 'patted down'. It was hardly traumatizing
Yeah, but that's YOU. Just because YOU don't mind doesn't mean that nobody else should.
byLoadmaster ( 720754 ) writes:
Terrible analogy. You take positive steps that are considered consent to be searched possibly by pat down. Telling someone you will grope her isn't a positive action by the person to be groped. Buying a ticket with the knowledge that you will be searched. Arriving at the airport. Entering a restricted (sterile, secure whatever they call it) area. Getting in line for a search. All positive steps that signify a consent to be searched. Up until you enter the secure area you can not be searched without probable cause. Once you enter you have consented and cannot unilaterally revoke.
And as far as it being "groping" or "sexual molestation" those are criminal charges with specific elements to be met. TSA pat downs, if done right, don't meet those elements or it would be illegal. Go ahead, sue one of 'em. It will be thrown out of court on summary judgment. Not because it's a government search, but because a properly done pat down isn't molestation. Same goes for police pat downs.
Yes, IAAL.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byLunzo ( 1065904 ) writes:
If you're a lawyer then you should know that just because something is legal doesn't mean it's moral or ethical. TSA patdowns clearly fall into this category - perfectly legal however many argue it's immoral for a government to mandate an invasive search like this.
byrotide ( 1015173 ) writes:
It seems your argument boils down to "it's legal so it's ok". I would like to point out that at one point slavery was legal. It was deemed ok, at least up until the point that the populace decided it was better to change that. It got so bad it essentially started a civil war.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byaardwolf64 ( 160070 ) writes:
A minor cannot consent to child molestation, nor groping by an adult... It's still illegal.
byRunaway1956 ( 1322357 ) writes:
Legal arguments don't impress me much. As I recall, a pretty famous person who also happened to be a lawyer had problems with the definitions of common words like "is", and "sex" when a scandal broke. Basically he told Congress that fellatio isn't really sex. Meanwhile, the unwashed masses know that having your cock sucked is indeed SEX!
I'll side with the unwashed masses over the TSA groping as well. I don't want another man touching my body unless he's a medical professional from whom I have sought pro
bymcgrew ( 92797 ) * writes:
TSA pat downs, if done right, don't meet those elements or it would be illegal.
"Illegal" is whatever the government says is illegal. Is this woman the only one left in the US with balls? Jesus Christ, what's wrong with you people? Are there no more real Americans left? Do you not care about freedom and liberty?
Shit, I'm getting old. When I was young we'd have rioted over this insane nonsense. Remember Kent State? No, of course you don't. You would have rooted for the National Guard murderers.
Meh. Pussies. Goddamn it, stand up to these assholes!
Parent
twitter
facebook
bycetialphav ( 246516 ) writes:
You take positive steps that are considered consent to be searched possibly by pat down.
Yes, IAAL.
I don't care whether you are a lawyer or not. I do not give consent to an unreasonable search of my person because I want to take a vacation and fly somewhere. The fact that flying is a voluntary action is completely irrelevant. I have the freedom to move around freely. My decision to exercise that right should not force me to be unreasonably searched without probable cause.
When I travel, I submit to the silly procedures involuntarily. I want to get somewhere and I make do because I have to, but that i
byAtryn ( 528846 ) writes:
The current procedures are so full of holes that there is no justification that the unreasonable searches are in any way necessary.
While I don't disagree with your sentiment at all, I think you are missing the value of the various security measures. You don't have to apply the most complete security measures to 100% of a given population. You just need to create an environment where there is a significant chance any individual passenger *might* be subjected to a more complete procedure. The deterrent
bycetialphav ( 246516 ) writes:
If you are a bomber are you going to go to the airport and "hope" you don't get the explosives test?
People who are willing to walk on a plane with a bomb on their body and detonate that bomb while on the plane are not going to be deterred because there is a small chance that they will get caught. In the worst case, they can just detonate the bomb in the security line when they are discovered.
I remember traveling before 9/11 happened and seeing quick tests for explosive residue on every laptop case that passed through the security line. Testing for explosives have been going on for longer than most peopl
bylwsimon ( 724555 ) writes:
Yes.
And if I *am* given the explosive test, then I run into the line behind me, kill a dozen people, and disrupt just as effectively as I would have had I done so in the air.
The dude is getting on a plate with the intention of blowing himself up - and you think he's going to reconsider because "he might get caught"?
byultranova ( 717540 ) writes:
If you are a bomber are you going to go to the airport and "hope" you don't get the explosives test?
I dunno, would you abort a certain-death suicide mission because you might be caught and thrown to prison?
byc-reus ( 852386 ) writes:
So the reports about TSA agents repeatedly touching people's sexual organs are completely OK because people consent to such behaviour? Granted, IANAL, but I do think that consenting to a pat down and consenting to having a stranger enter his finger into your girlfriend's vagina are completely different things.
I do agree that that pat downs are nowhere near "groping" or "sexual molestation" if done right. The problem is that the pat downs are *not* done right. A court throwing out a case because a pat down c
byLoadmaster ( 720754 ) writes:
If a TSA agent sticks a finger in your girlfriends vagina press charges. That is not a proper pat down and is sexual molestation. And I'm guessing that story is false (or an extreme example) considering only women can do female pat downs. If a male was doing the pat down SOP has been breached making it an improper pat down no matter what happens.
A court wouldn't throw out a case on summary judgment if there really was sufficient legal evidence of groping. People are claiming that *all* pat downs are sexual
bycvtan ( 752695 ) writes:
Sorry, there is no free choice if you are going to Hawaii etc.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byTravelsonic ( 870859 ) writes:
Please tell me you actually read the arguments being made. If you did, you'd see the issue is NOT WITH BEING SCREENED but the METHODS USED. It is there, plain black-and-white, and yet people supporting or being apathetic to, these methods keep on ignoring the blatantly obvious facts.
byCulture20 ( 968837 ) writes:
There are these things that float on water, I forget what they're called.
Bread?
bykwiqsilver ( 585008 ) writes:
There are these things that float on water, I forget what they're called. It'll come to me.
Witches?
byRunaway1956 ( 1322357 ) writes:
I avoid it. If I really wanted to fly to Hawaii, I'd take a boat. If I really really really wanted to fly to Hawaii, I'd take a boat. If I just HAD TO be in Hawaii TOMORROW instead of next week, then I'd submit to the screening, and fly.
But, then I have to ask myself, WTF do I need to be in Hawaii tomorrow for? I don't know anyone there, don't have any funerals to attend, don't need to be present for a will to be read - there is no need for me to be there. So, I'm back to sailing!
bymcgrew ( 92797 ) * writes:
It's called "protest". Civil disobedience. DO IT, damn it! We need more true Americans like this woman.
bycavreader ( 1903280 ) writes:
The US has been practicing wholesale civil disobedience since it was founded. If you can't see that you are not paying close enough attention. The problem is everyone has their own ideas about where disobedience should be targeted against.
byMacgrrl ( 762836 ) writes:
There are these things that float on water, I forget what they're called.
Bread?
Ducks?
So if she weighs less than a duck, she's a witch?
byMister Transistor ( 259842 ) writes:
Very small rocks?
byPseudonym ( 62607 ) writes:
A duck!
bykwiqsilver ( 585008 ) writes:
If I really wanted to fly to Hawaii, I'd take a boat.
Please explain how this is possible.
byMightyMartian ( 840721 ) writes:
Of course, if you happen to live in a democracy, and you convince enough people that this sort of behavior in airports is no longer to be tolerated, you win and it stops.
Right?
byiphinome ( 810750 ) writes:
Wrong you must convince enough people to care enough to vote for someone who will undo this airport mess instead of someone promising to do something else that they want. If republicans want it gone but care more about say abortion then it doesn't help. If democrats want it gone but care more about sat abortion then it doesn't help. They'll elect people who will do what the voters want about abortion and what they themselves want about maintaining their own power by setting up a police state. Agreeing isn't
byLandDolphin ( 1202876 ) writes:
However, if you live in a republic then the elected officials can continue to do what is deemed best for society - even if the society doesn't want it anymore.
byganjadude ( 952775 ) writes:
sure.. you COULD take a train or a bus... oh wait, there is this http://szaboservices.blogspot.com/2011/06/tsa-plans-8000-screenings-on-trains.html [blogspot.com]
byTravelsonic ( 870859 ) writes:
*sigh*
The issue is NOT WITH BEING SCREENED. It's with the METHODS USED.
And, IMO of course, the choice or lack thereof has jack shit to do with limits imposed on what the TSA can do, and what those limits are/should be.
byLingNoi ( 1066278 ) writes:
Only in the US. I've never seen this happen in any other airport in the world (hence why I never visit the US anymore).
bycausality ( 777677 ) writes:
Having your throat cut by a terrorist is also potentially required if you board a plane. Can't really object, because you can always take a bus, train, car, or whatever else. Conclusion: if you decide to fly sit quietly to facilitate throat-cutting.
You think that scares me into agreeing with you? How cheap. Hey when both the facts and the will of the people are overwhelmingly against you, just go for the emotional angle and see if you can play on their fears. That's not completely transparent at all. The fact is, you're more likely to get struck by lightning than fall victim to any sort of terrorist attack.
It's perfectly rational to be much more wary of the US government than any terrorist. Meanwhile, the US government is giving the terrorists exactly the panic-based security-theater overreaction they wanted. A terrorist's wet dream is to perform one attack or a small number of attacks and have those forever change the way the attacked nation is run. It lets them know that conducting such attacks means they get their way and have the impact they desired to have.
If you really want to secure airports, take a hard look at how the Israelis do it. They have many more problems with terrorism than the US has ever had. Hint: their methods don't involve groping and they don't involve using radiation to see beneath clothing. Instead, they use this crazy thing called good old-fashioned police work. Like so many other things we simply refuse to do, it works every time it's tried. The Israelis are not looking for inanimate objects like guns, knives, and explosives. The Israelis are looking for terrorists, you know, the people who have to wield the weapons before those weapons can do harm. At this they have been most successful by any law-enforcement or security standard.
It's quite difficult to argue with success. The surest sign of someone who makes a factual matter into a religious issue and an article of faith is that they will try to do it anyway.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byJWSmythe ( 446288 ) writes:
That is a horribly unfair comparison.
How many people have been touched under duress for the sake of "security" in airports?
How many people have had their throats cut by terrorists on aircraft?
And finally, how many people have honestly been stopped from committing or attempting to commit such actions?
I'll fill in some numbers for you, since you won't attempt to research it.
Approximately 620 million people fly per year.
byJoce640k ( 829181 ) writes:
You think the TSA prevents terrorism?
Clue: Terrorism doesn't have to be done on 'planes.
byvux984 ( 928602 ) writes:
They go to the airport, stand in line watching the hundreds before them go through the same process.
And that somehow makes it ok?
byTravelsonic ( 870859 ) writes:
No, you idiot, they go to the airport not expecting to get groped. The whole issue is with the methods, not with being searched in of itself. How hard is that to understand?
bygeminidomino ( 614729 ) writes:
This has, indeed, actually been done. By a semi-celebrity, nonetheless. See? [pennandteller.com]
And that even predates the new, intentionally "invasive" patdowns, by far.
'Course, nothing every happened to it, since these worthless sacks of crap are government sacks of crap.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, indeed.
bymorari ( 1080535 ) writes:
I go to the airport expecting a quick pass through a metal detector and nothing more.
byJabberWokky ( 19442 ) writes:
Quite correct. I do not expect to be searched. I am not searched on the sidewalk without probable cause. Crimes are committed on the sidewalk, many resulting in deaths. I am not searched in my car without probable cause. Crimes are committed on the roads, many resulting in deaths. I am not searched when I sit at home without probable cause. Crimes are committed in private residences, many resulting in deaths.
I am a United States citizen, and I do not expect to be forced to submit to a government mand
byLingNoi ( 1066278 ) writes:
Non-American here. I've never been patted down at airports (outside the US) and I've internationally flown to more then 10 locations in the last 4 years, so no I wouldn't be expecting that. With that said, I never visit the US because of this reason, too stressful, not worth it.
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Parent
twitter
facebook
byplover ( 150551 ) * writes:
One thing is that you shouldn't worry about the scanners. The airplane you are about to board is going to expose you to hundreds of times more radiation during the flight that the backscatter scanners. That's not to say whether or not they're healthy for a TSA agent to operate next to for 8 hours a day for five years, but for the traveler, they are simply not exposed to enough radiation to change their risk of harm in a statistically measurable fashion.
Of course, buying the scanners consumed $370 million dollars worth of OUR MONEY, over a dollar for every American, pissed away on a device that has prevented exactly ZERO terrorists from doing anything the metal detectors weren't already catching. That's ZERO value for our money. You would have gotten more utility and value from your money if you had wiped your ass with a dollar bill and flushed it.
That said, did you notice how the post you responded to used the word "contraband" instead of "weapons"? I don't give a greasy fart whether the guy next to me is carrying 10 pounds of cocaine. It's not my problem. I don't care about contraband. And you better not make me stand in a goddamn hour-long line to search for coke, because IT DOESN'T MATTER TO MY SAFETY. Contraband is a bullshit argument.
I also don't even care if someone boards the damn plane with a knife. I used to carry them on planes every time I flew, and strangely enough they didn't cause a terrorist incident. Knives are only dangerous on a plane if you're trying to shave in turbulence.
If someone wants to use a knife on a plane to threaten someone, he's going to have me and about a dozen other pissed off guys to contend with. I'll take my chances with a knife or even soak up the bullets in his gun before letting the plane my family is on go down in a crash for his fucking crazy cause. And that attitude is not mine alone. Another box cutter fueled 9/11 just isn't going to happen.
The TSA should be cut immediately by 50%, and the backscatter machines donated to some clever third world country engineering school to re-equip them as medical X-ray devices so at least someone can get some use from them.
As for the politicians who supported the USA PATRIOT act? They should never hold another term in any office in this country. They can go run for office in Saudi Arabia for all I care, but they're not American patriots, and don't deserve the flags they pompously wear on their lapels.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bymogness ( 1697042 ) writes:
You would have gotten more utility and value from your money if you had wiped your ass with a dollar bill and flushed it.
Wish I had mod points for you sir.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byRunaway1956 ( 1322357 ) writes:
As for the politicians who supported the USA PATRIOT act? They should never hold another term in any office in this country. They can go run for office in Saudi Arabia for all I care, but they're not American patriots, and don't deserve the flags they pompously wear on their lapels.
That pretty much sums it up. Thank you, Sir, or Ma'am, as the case may be.
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
bydamburger ( 981828 ) writes:
You don't know that the scanners are safe, because they have not been properly tested and monitored.
Radiation is not all equivalent anyhow. Cosmic radiation you experienced is composed of very high energy protons and heavier nuclei - most of the blast straight through you without depositing much energy.
Backscatter X-rays, however, are not very penetrating, and deposit all their energy in a few cm of tissue. Ironically, the lower energy radiation can be more dangerous than the higher due to it interacting mo
byFalconhell ( 1289630 ) writes:
There is a funny take on this in an old salirewire article';
http://www.satirewire.com/content1/?p=168 [satirewire.com]
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
byKingAlanI ( 1270538 ) writes:
That reminds me of this: I was arguing of profiling on grounds of practicality, political correctness be darned, and the debate partner responded with something like "Osama would then just find someone who didn't look Middle Eastern."
(I had phrased my argument something like 'Yes, many Arabs aren't terrorists, but many America-hating terrorists are Arabs')
byerroneus ( 253617 ) writes:
Consider this:
The TSA will allow more than X ounces of fluid untested if it is declared or presumed to be for a young child. So in truth, exceptions for children and even adults with medical conditions are already being made. Sure, that baby's bottle probably does contain milk or apple juice, but if you were a bad person, would you not see the opportunity to bring more than X ounces of dangerous material in the same type of vessel?
Another fun fact:
You can't bring butane or similar fuel containers on a pla
bycetialphav ( 246516 ) writes:
The TSA will allow more than X ounces of fluid untested if it is declared or presumed to be for a young child. So in truth, exceptions for children and even adults with medical conditions are already being made. Sure, that baby's bottle probably does contain milk or apple juice, but if you were a bad person, would you not see the opportunity to bring more than X ounces of dangerous material in the same type of vessel?
Well, my friends with babies tell me that the TSA makes them taste the liquids they are carrying for my kids. They tell me they have even been forced to open sealed jars of baby food and taste them. I don't know whether that is a common procedure or not, but that would definitely mitigate the risks.
There is a bigger loophole than that, though. Pilots and stewardesses are not subject to the same screening as the rest of us. They are only sent through the metal detectors and the TSA agents will not preven
byerroneus ( 253617 ) writes:
You have weird information and/or a faulty perception. I can't speak to the liquid limits or exceptions to them except through my own experience as a passenger because those limits were imposed after I left the TSA. I can say that neither I nor my wife were asked to taste anything. If that has become policy, it is new policy. As for exceptions to screening? Doubtful. All airport and airline personnel are supposed to have RFID verified badges. They get screened for all the same things with no exceptio
byryanov ( 193048 ) writes:
I just traveled on two flights this week with a prescription. I called it "medically necessary liquid" and was not asked anything more about it. 1 bottle was 8 oz, the other two were 4 oz. All larger than the allowable size, and all without a word. There could have been anything in there. Now, as I used those liquids on the plane, I'm happy that there is an exception (as I was a couple of years ago when I had a throat issue that meant all I could really deal with was meal replacement shakes, which I also br
bycetialphav ( 246516 ) writes:
I can say that neither I nor my wife were asked to taste anything. If that has become policy, it is new policy.
I don't doubt that as I have not seen that either. But this was mentioned to me less than a week ago by two separate families. I have no idea if this is a policy thing or an uppity TSA agent.
As for exceptions to screening? Doubtful. All airport and airline personnel are supposed to have RFID verified badges. They get screened for all the same things with no exceptions which includes water bottles.
This happened right in front of me in RDU airport in May. A pilot and two stewardesses walked straight to the front of the line which was noticeable to me because I was next up. No one looked at their ID. One of the stewardesses had a liter bottle of water and put it in the bin with her shoes and was zipped right o
byAnonymous Coward writes:
When the terrorists from Hamas learned that the Israelis were willing to give Palestinian women less of a search than men, they tried two tactics: dressing men in burkhas, and recruiting women suicide bombers.
When they learned it was little kids that wouldn't be so thoroughly searched, they started sending bombs in strollers.
Either you screen everyone, or screening is pointless.
bybetterunixthanunix ( 980855 ) writes:
Either you screen everyone, or screening is pointless.
The screening is pointless anyway, if the goal is to prevent a terrorist attack. The airport screeners were found to routinely miss knives and even firearms during the screenings in the last test.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byJoce640k ( 829181 ) writes:
Either you screen everyone, or screening is pointless.
Did you mean: "screening is pointless"
How would you/the USA react if a terrorist walked into a scanner tomorrow and blew himself up?
Think about that.
I mean really think...
byLingNoi ( 1066278 ) writes:
Extremely poor example. Israeli airport security has no full body scanners or full pat downs. In fact i'm sure the head guy there said that the way america does airport security is all wrong.
http://www.slate.com/id/2279753/ [slate.com]
byl3v1 ( 787564 ) writes:
The airport screeners were found to routinely miss knives and even firearms during the screenings in the last test.
Also, they are very good at holding you up pointlessly, e.g. it happened to me several times that I needed to step back into the machine because they might have seen "something", which of course turned out to be nothing, one time they even "patdown"ed me after a repeated screening, only to see that nothing, after which I heard the guy telling into the radio to re-calibrate the machine. And of course all this didn't make me happier since I didn't have too much time between connections. So in the end this is
byjonamous++ ( 1687704 ) writes:
Why did you get re-scanned between connections? Usually I arrive at a gate in the secure area, and walk (or run) to another gate, still within the secure area.
byhal2814 ( 725639 ) writes:
He could've been flying through somewhere like New York where a "connection" could take you from LaGuardia to JFK or vice versa. I know that seems silly for a connection at different airports but I also know that at least British Airways considers the LaGuardia-to-JFK scenario a connection in their systems.
bydgatwood ( 11270 ) writes:
The white elephant in the room is that for the cost and troubles the current security theater inflicts upon the public for little actual "security", a *real* security system could be set up that doesn't require intrusive body searches or thousands of ultra-expensive taxpayer-funded machines contracted from a firm which a recently-departed high-ranking security official has a large interest in.
Or, put more simply:
Remember that when terrorists blow up the next plane, it will be because the TSA was too busy gr
byMister Transistor ( 259842 ) writes:
There are elephants in rooms, and there are white elephants. The two never combine. I know, I read the manual.
The elephant in the room is an unavoidable fact everyone is ignoring. A white elephant is a rarity, something never seen normally. Then there are pink elephants, which are hallucinations no one ever wants to see.
You see, the white elephants never hang around in rooms long enough for everyone to notice, but not comment on.
Sorry, just a pet peeve like "irregardless"... In fact I have several pet
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
ussion
●
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...