TSA: Resistance is Futile

Another episode in the TSA saga:

TSA screening a young mother with breast milk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XhnZlmLGK8

Don't you just love to see the number of folks passing minding their own business as a young mother stands in a glass box in the middle of the airport!!

I don't disagree with the need for some type of screening; it doesn't need to be this invasive.

Best,

Dave
 
alaskaflyer said:
Yeah, right. Stay tuned for "virtual" cavity searches :eek: Which will of course make it all right.
Click to expand...

It depends on when one of Chertoff's clients has a $4billion machine for sale but then they'll put everybody flying through a CAT scan and insist that their scientists say there's no danger from the radiation.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Another episode in the TSA saga:

TSA screening a young mother with breast milk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XhnZlmLGK8

Don't you just love to see the number of folks passing minding their own business as a young mother stands in a glass box in the middle of the airport!!

I don't disagree with the need for some type of screening; it doesn't need to be this invasive.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

Aside from whether it's excessively invasive or not, there is the problem that they refused to follow their own rules. Apparently some TSA employees have decided that we have 'a government of men, and not of laws.'

http://www.bartleby.com/73/991.html
 
Palmpilot said:
Aside from whether it's excessively invasive or not, there is the problem that they refused to follow their own rules. Apparently some TSA employees have decided that we have 'a government of men, and not of laws.'

http://www.bartleby.com/73/991.html
Click to expand...

They repeatedly don't follow their own TSA rules. They've been known to detain a passenger after and during the haranguing session while they check the web to see if their arbitrary ruling is in the rules. Not that it matters. They have the reassurance that TSA management from the beginning has always backed up whatever functional illiterate Barney does at the scene. They "empower" Barney to decide on his own what rights to trample.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Another episode in the TSA saga:

TSA screening a young mother with breast milk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XhnZlmLGK8

Don't you just love to see the number of folks passing minding their own business as a young mother stands in a glass box in the middle of the airport!!

I don't disagree with the need for some type of screening; it doesn't need to be this invasive.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...
Yes, I think some type of screening is fine. Maybe something like they did pre-911, which was just as (in)effective but at least caught some crazy people.

But I am less worried about airport screening now. Some much bigger problems have emerged (like scanning people that are just walking on a city street or are in their own house) without their knowledge using vans. Things have become scary. If it gets much worse - like if they start showing up with body scanners at ferry terminals and bridges - I'm going to be able to make the STASI comparison quite easily. We'll see what happens with censorship and Wikileaks.....
 
Last edited:
mikea said:
They repeatedly don't follow their own TSA rules. They've been known to detain a passenger after and during the haranguing session while they check the web to see if their arbitrary ruling is in the rules. Not that it matters. They have the reassurance that TSA management from the beginning has always backed up whatever functional illiterate Barney does at the scene. They "empower" Barney to decide on his own what rights to trample.
Click to expand...

Wait until the unionize...
 
People should not be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people.

v-for-vendetta_5.jpg
 
I think the TSA is afraid of the people.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
If people weren't afraid, they would have no power.
Click to expand...

"I want everyone to remember why they need us!"

pol09.jpg


Yeah, guess which movie I was watching earlier after I ran out of parts to work on the vehicles in the garage.
 
V for Vendetta. A 2006 film that most people either really liked or really didn't. Made by the same people who made the Matrix trilogy. If you liked The Matrix, you'll like it.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
V for Vendetta. A 2006 film that most people either really liked or really didn't. Made by the same people who made the Matrix trilogy. If you liked The Matrix, you'll like it.
Click to expand...
Matrix trology? There was no Matrix Trilogy!! There was one movie and that is it. No equals NOTHING. No sir!! NOT A TRILOGY, I REFUSE TO BELIEVE SUCH NONSENSE. LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA


I liked V BTW. The graphic novel was that it was based on was really good to.
 
ScottM said:
Matrix trology? There was no Matrix Trilogy!! There was one movie and that is it. No equals NOTHING. No sir!! NOT A TRILOGY, I REFUSE TO BELIEVE SUCH NONSENSE. LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA
Click to expand...

While some people didn't like the second one, most who watched the third one not only liked it, but liked the second one better afterwards (since it explained a lot of what went on).

Oh, wait, you forgot to follow the white rabbit. Well, the Matrix has you. ;)

I liked V BTW. The graphic novel was that it was based on was really good to.
Click to expand...

I'd like to check out the graphic novel one day, sounds interesting.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
While some people didn't like the second one, most who watched the third one not only liked it, but liked the second one better afterwards (since it explained a lot of what went on).

Oh, wait, you forgot to follow the white rabbit. Well, the Matrix has you. ;)
Click to expand...
I'll bet you think that the Phantom Menace is a timeless classic too!! ;)


Ted DuPuis said:
I'd like to check out the graphic novel one day, sounds interesting.
Click to expand...
The graphic novel is far more political that the movie. By that I mean really more directed at specific issues of the day. Realize that the graphic novel was written in the 1980s and was directed at the Thatcher government. I liked it because I was living in the UK for part of that time and had some first hand observations of the commentary.
 
Once again Bruce Scheier nails the truth... Hey! A squirrel!
Organizers of National Opt Out Day, the Wednesday before Thanksgiving when air travelers were urged to opt out of the full-body scanners at security checkpoints and instead submit to full-body patdowns -- were outfoxed by the TSA. The government pre-empted the protest by turning off the machines in most airports during the Thanksgiving weekend. Everyone went through the metal detectors, just as before.

...

But now, the TSA is in a bind. Regardless of whatever lobbying came before, or whatever former DHS officials had a financial interest in these scanners, the TSA has spent billions on those scanners, claiming they're essential. But because people can opt out, the alternate manual method must be equally effective; otherwise, the terrorists could just opt out. If they make the pat-downs less invasive, it would be the same as admitting the scanners aren't essential. Senior officials would get fired over that.

So not counting inconsequential modifications to demonstrate they're "listening," the pat-downs will continue...
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/12/full_body_scann.html
Click to expand...
 
Morpheus: The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

Best,

Dave
 
ScottM said:
Matrix trology? There was no Matrix Trilogy!! There was one movie and that is it. No equals NOTHING. No sir!! NOT A TRILOGY, I REFUSE TO BELIEVE SUCH NONSENSE. LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA


I liked V BTW. The graphic novel was that it was based on was really good to.
Click to expand...

A. if you are referring to the fact that the sequels sucked, I agree with you/

B. When you say graphic novel, do you mean comic?
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Morpheus: The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

So true, Dave. So very, very true.

Now if only I could figure out a way to get 100LL out of my well instead of water. Hmm...
 
woodstock said:
B. When you say graphic novel, do you mean comic?
Click to expand...
When I think of comics I think of those pulp paper 50 or so page type of things. Graphic novels are much longer and while they may appear as comic like tend to be much more rich in plot, design and construction.

V for Vendetta as a graphic novel is available in soft or hard back
http://www.amazon.com/V-Vendetta-Alan-Moore/dp/140120841X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1291484813&sr=8-1

and is just under 300 pages long.

Also the term sounds less kid and nerd like ;)
 
Interesting article in today's WSJ where John Pistole addresses some of these issues. Notice, he does favor the scanners the Dutch are using but states they have too high a rate of false positives. Interesting.

Best,

Dave

The former first: There will be no additional tortures. Cavity searches or other more expansive body checks are out at least as long as terrorist body bombs require, as today, an external initiator or trigger. "As far as the intrusiveness and the invasiveness of the person, based on what we know, I don't see us going further than" current policy, he says. "I don't think we can, frankly. I think we've probably reached the public limit."

He's also willing to study the matter. TSA on Monday did what bureaucracies do, launching "a review" to see if the pat-down can be, in Mr. Pistole's words, "less invasive and still have the same high level of confidence that we do now that everybody's been properly screened."

New technology may bring some relief, as well. The agency is testing a next generation of Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) that can spot foreign objects without all the anatomical detail thrown in. Amsterdam airport already uses such so-called blob machines, which show an outline of the body. "I'm a big proponent of those," Mr. Pistole says but adds that TSA finds that there's too high a rate of "false positives" with those devices now. Once the software is perfected, he says, the existing AIT machines at airports near you can be simply reprogrammed.

http://tinyurl.com/2eo5lgy
 
The former first: There will be no additional tortures. Cavity searches or other more expansive body checks are out at least as long as terrorist body bombs require, as today, an external initiator or trigger.
Click to expand...
That's a very scary statement and goes to show that he doesn't know what he's talking about. I guess he hasn't heard of a timer? :dunno:

Also, such searches are out _only_ until the TSA thinks they should not be out anymore? They not just out, period? Wow.

"As far as the intrusiveness and the invasiveness of the person, based on what we know, I don't see us going further than" current policy, he says. "I don't think we can, frankly. I think we've probably reached the public limit."
Click to expand...
No, they've exceeded the public limit. That's pretty obvious, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. And it also doesn't address all the other issues - such as not wanting to be irradiated with unknown health risks, or not wanting to be virtually strip-searched.
 
mikea said:
Once again Bruce Scheier nails the truth... Hey! A squirrel!
Click to expand...

So if these things are so crucial to our safety, how is it they can turn them off on opt out day and not one single airline fell out of the sky? :hairraise:
 
mikea said:
Once again Bruce Scheier nails the truth... Hey! A squirrel!
Click to expand...
The TSA did not spend "billions", we the taxpayers did under the guise of nat'l security whilst praying to the god of all the all knowing all seeing mighty govt.
 
sba55 said:
"As far as the intrusiveness and the invasiveness of the person, based on what we know, I don't see us going further than" current policy, he says. "I don't think we can, frankly. I think we've probably reached the public limit."
Click to expand...
No, they've exceeded the public limit. That's pretty obvious, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. And it also doesn't address all the other issues - such as not wanting to be irradiated with unknown health risks, or not wanting to be virtually strip-searched.
Click to expand...

What worries me most is that his statement 'i don't think we can' reads to me like they they would if they could. They've clearly exceeded some people's limit, but the level of discussion can't be considered an accurate gauge of how upset the public is. The country, and the media especially, are really good at blowing minor things out of proportion. So i think hearing a lot about it doesn't necessarily mean much.

On a related note: I'm annoyed that of all the possible reasons to complain, so many people have chosen the "OMG, someone's gonna see me nekkid!" option. I think that's among the most trivial of the concerns. And when it comes down to a perceived choice between safety and security I think people will realize at some level that it's not the first time someone has seen them naked and then accept that maybe it's not so bad after all. I'd rather they had picked a better argument - one that would hold up better under distress.
 
shenanigans said:
What worries me most is that his statement 'i don't think we can' reads to me like they they would if they could. They've clearly exceeded some people's limit, but the level of discussion can't be considered an accurate gauge of how upset the public is. The country, and the media especially, are really good at blowing minor things out of proportion. So i think hearing a lot about it doesn't necessarily mean much.

On a related note: I'm annoyed that of all the possible reasons to complain, so many people have chosen the "OMG, someone's gonna see me nekkid!" option. I think that's among the most trivial of the concerns. And when it comes down to a perceived choice between safety and security I think people will realize at some level that it's not the first time someone has seen them naked and then accept that maybe it's not so bad after all. I'd rather they had picked a better argument - one that would hold up better under distress.
Click to expand...
All true. At the same time, those people who complain about someone seeing them naked (which is a valid concern in itself, especially if that someone is of the opposite sex and belongs to an organization whose employees have been demonstrated to be less than professional) might not ONLY complain about that, but they might also object to the strip-search itself - I bet many just talk about it in a slightly unclear way.

In other words, the "crime" here is the strip-search. The effect is that people are robbed of their privacy. That's a problem, but the root cause is the invasive strip-search. So I'm not sure that this isn't a good argument - it's just not always presented clearly. The argument that I do think is missing the point is the "but it doesn't actually improve security" one. While that's true, that's NOT an effective argument. Even if it DID improve security, these new procedures would still be invasive, disproportionate, and scary. Of course you can always improve security by implementing draconian measures, but that doesn't mean that these measures are justified.

Otherwise, we're going down a very slippery slope. Let's next impose a curfew at 6pm, which will probably help with security.....
 
TSA hasn't apprehended one single terrorist. Has not demonstrated its effectiveness even once in nine years. Numerous investigators have slipped through their blue-gloved fingers with contraband, and many TSA employees have been accused of abuse and unprofessional conduct. Several terrorists, including the underwear bomber, were stopped, not by TSA, but by the passengers themselves. The invasive searches, occasioned ostensibly by that Christmas attempt, are only now, a year later, coming into use. During which time not one other such attempt has been made. Even odder, TSA apparently has agreed to exempt from search or scan people who claim to practice a religion that has been implicated in every single incidence of airline terrorism since 9/10/2001. So the new terror method is to ship explosives in baggage. Too much trouble to actually scan luggage. So ban.... printer cartridges! I tell you, these people are geniuses!

Can we agree that this abusive absurdity is NOT about stopping terrorism, much less 'making Americans safer'? That leaves us wondering, what IS it about? Obviously, there's the business of employing the otherwise unemployable, faithful bloc voters who'll stay bought. But there's a more sinister agenda here, I believe, and it's evidenced by the unconscionable treatment of the woman who pointed out the TSA's own policy. She, predictably, was punished for her failure to knuckle under to authority, even though the authority was wrong, maybe especially because of that fact.

Just how much abuse are American citizens willing to tolerate? At what point will we willingly and meekly sell out our hard-won birthright, and that of our children because some bureaucrat promises, fingers crossed, that if we behave like good little sheep, we won't be much further violated?

Ben Franklin was right. People who would trade freedom for security deserve neither.
 
Amelia said:
Even odder, TSA apparently has agreed to exempt from search or scan people who claim to practice a religion that has been implicated in every single incidence of airline terrorism since 9/10/2001.
Click to expand...

That sentence is fraught with inaccuracy and embellishment.

But otherwise I agree with you :wink2:
 
Amelia said:
Even odder, TSA apparently has agreed to exempt from search or scan people who claim to practice a religion that has been implicated in every single incidence of airline terrorism since 9/10/2001.
Click to expand...

What's odd is how many people apparently believe that without doing any fact-checking.
 
PHILADELPHIA (CBS) – A 37-year-old former Transportation Security Administration officer has been sentenced to three years’ probation for stealing laptop computers from passengers’ luggage at Philadelphia International Airport.

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/20...oids-prison-after-stealing-travelers-laptops/
Click to expand...

The surprise for me is that the case made it to court. Usually the TSA says they'll investigate and can't release information due to reasons of national security. The reason being that any embarrassment to the TSA harms their national security.
 
This was my TSA experience in Denver last Thursday morning. I could see that some of the lines had scanners so I purposely chose one that had one. It also had a metal detector. When it came time for me, the guy who normally directs people was sitting there staring at the ceiling looking bored. I asked which one he wanted me to go through. I said, "I don't care" so he motioned me to the metal detector. I guess that's the easier option for him. :dunno:

I didn't see anyone at all getting patted down.
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
This was my TSA experience in Denver last Thursday morning. I could see that some of the lines had scanners so I purposely chose one that had one. It also had a metal detector. When it came time for me, the guy who normally directs people was sitting there staring at the ceiling looking bored. I asked which one he wanted me to go through. I said, "I don't care" so he motioned me to the metal detector. I guess that's the easier option for him. :dunno:

I didn't see anyone at all getting patted down.
Click to expand...

Out of DEN last week my wife and I ended up in the scanner line. She went first but the line was a little slow. They TSA person asked me 'You're not going to set it off are you', gesturing at the metal detector. I said 'no' and walked through. Then waited 5 minutes for the wife while she got patted down due to 'suspicious' areas. TSAs comm between the scan reader and the searcher was bad and they repeated things many times.

Coming back from Cancun, there were no scanner and you didn't have to take your shoes off. Big sign 'Do not remove shoes' in english but over half of the folks still did.
 
It must be in the law. The TSA always gets the last word, even as we can be certain that the words get dumber and dumber:

A woman who became a YouTube sensation earlier this month when she went through airport security in a bikini spent a night at the airport Tuesday because of TSA agents' concerns about an "unusual contour" around her buttocks.
...
Tammy Banovac says she is hand-searched every time she goes through airport security because she uses a wheelchair. But ever since the TSA instituted new "enhanced" pat-downs that involve touching of genitals, she has found herself feeling violated.
...But now Banovac says the TSA found another reason to bar her from boarding. As she tried to board a flight -- fully clothed-- for the first time since the earlier incident, the TSA informed her they had found an "unusual contour" around her buttocks which they couldn't explain.

Banovac offered to strip for the agents to prove that she's not hiding anything. However, since TSA agents aren't allowed to fully undress a passenger, they had no choice but to deny her access to her flight.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/tsa-bans-bikini-woman-buttocks/
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • tammybanovac.jpg
    tammybanovac.jpg
    18.7 KB · Views: 25
Last edited:
mikea said:
It must be in the law. The TSA always gets the last word, even as we can be certain that the words get dumber and dumber:
Click to expand...

It can get even dumber? The mind boggles...
 
There was an al Qaeda strategy document that was made public some time after the 9/11 attacks; it explained that one of the goals of terrorist attacks on a great power was the response that it would provoke from the great power.

I'm guessing that al Qaeda's leaders are having a good laugh at all this stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top