Tired of TSA's Expanding Power?

[ridestrong 1]

Quote

You can't profile, you can't pat-down, you can't scan, people bitch about taking their shoes off, they bitch about liquid carry-on restrictions, and on and on and on...

Quote

And yet for all the crap passengers have to put up with...

Yeah, it's SOOOO bad, it's boarder-line torture. Frankly you made my point above.

Quote

and that is the problem. Putting up with these violations for actual progress in one question, but putting up with it for no actual safety gain is a no brainer FUCK NO answer

.

No... the problem is too many whiny bitches not allowing the currently implemented measures to be performed in a thorough and proper way. Something needs to be in place.... what do you propose??

*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.*
----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.----

[dgskydive 0]

Bill. Not what you are looking for really. I am addicted to Tech Blogs now and this article is more a story then anything else. I know that Gizmodo is not a real news source and I am not claiming that this article is 100% accurate on any thing.

http://gizmodo.com/5692198/a-tsa-success-story

The interesting part is the link below. From a UCSF Professor.

http://j.mp/cancer-ray.

Dom

[dgskydive 0]

Quote

The X-ray backscatter machines do use higher frequency ionizing radiation. The current specs are such that you will receive less radiation from the device than you'll receive during 2 minutes of flight in an airplane.

Read the link to the PDF in my last post. It seems to contradict this.

Dom

[ridestrong 1]

Quote

First of all, I think we're already pretty safe flying....

Yeah and most likely 99% of people would have said that exact same thing before 9-11. I would have been one of them.

*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.*
----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.----

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

No... the problem is too many whiny bitches not allowing the currently implemented measures to be performed in a thorough and proper way. Something needs to be in place.... what do you propose??

So I take it you'll be happy to bend over for the upcoming anal searches, eh, Sheep? The ACLU isn't waiting for the proposal, they're already opposing it.

It's much like gun control laws. If the existing ones aren't solving the problem, then stupidly throwing more into action isn't going to help. Nor is molesting the passengers and spreading their naked pictures around.

If someone can carry a loaded gun onto the plane without even trying to hide it, we have obvious problems to fix. Locking the cockpit door and having air marshalls does something. Arming those pilots is another forward step.

but the only point to the millimeter naked scan seems to be to establish that the TSA can do whatever it wants, regardless of value, and that passengers have no say in the matter. Because the cavity search is the obvious next step, since bomber types are already doing it.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

First of all, I think we're already pretty safe flying....

Yeah and most likely 99% of people would have said that exact same thing before 9-11. I would have been one of them.

and how many have died since 9-12?

[dgskydive 0]

Quote

No... the problem is too many whiny bitches not allowing the currently implemented measures to be performed in a thorough and proper way. Something needs to be in place.... what do you propose??

I'm gonna propose that if they touch my junk. We have a problem.

I'm gonna propose they fully test these scanners before they try to tell us they are safe. They have not been tested to see what effects they will have on people. You can believe the politicians when they tell you they are safe, but they really haven't been tested the way that you think they have.

Dom

[DanG 1]

So then when will we be suffficiently safe? Where is the line?

I submit that we will never be 100% safe, so the idea that we have to do everything possible to improve safety just ends up being blanket permission for the government to expand their powers and erode our freedom.

- Dan G

[david3 0]

Quote

Quote

First of all, I think we're already pretty safe flying....

Yeah and most likely 99% of people would have said that exact same thing before 9-11. I would have been one of them.

So what is more of a whiny bitch? Being so afraid of the terrorist you will tolerate the illusion of being made safe or bitching about the illusion.

.

[ridestrong 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

First of all, I think we're already pretty safe flying....

Yeah and most likely 99% of people would have said that exact same thing before 9-11. I would have been one of them.

So what is more of a whiny bitch? Being so afraid of the terrorist you will tolerate the illusion of being made safe or bitching about the illusion.

.

Personally I'm not at all affraid of flying.... but we obviously need some screening measures in place. I'm just sick of people bitching and moaning about anything and everything.

Someone's mad because they wouldn't let you carry on your 4oz container of liquid??? Well shit, where have you been for the past 9 years? You didn't think to put it in your checked baggage? Tough shit, you should have known better so quit bitching about it.

*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.*
----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.----

[dgskydive 0]

Quote

Someone's mad because they wouldn't let you carry on your 4oz container of liquid??? Well shit, where have you been for the past 9 years? You didn't think to put it in your checked baggage? Tough shit, you should have known better so quit bitching about it.

Big difference between making someone throw away their shampoo or mouthwash or putting their hands in your pants. Yes they do that. They don't reach in and grab you, but they are putting hands under your clothes.

Dom

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Someone's mad because they wouldn't let you carry on your 4oz container of liquid??? Well shit, where have you been for the past 9 years? You didn't think to put it in your checked baggage? Tough shit, you should have known better so quit bitching about it.

Big difference between making someone throw away their shampoo or mouthwash or putting their hands in your pants. Yes they do that. They don't reach in and grab you, but they are putting hands under your clothes.

But they have rubber gloves on - it's as safe as wearing a condom.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[dgskydive 0]

Quote

They changed the procedure again, going to the 'enhanced enhanced' pat down. It's on the level of a prison frisk now.

Great!! Now you will have to bend over, spread your butt cheeks and cough!! lol

Dom

[billvon 3,109]

>I'm gonna propose they fully test these scanners before they try to
>tell us they are safe.

They can't, because they are not perfectly safe. Neither is your cellphone, or the lights in your house (they emit terahertz radiation!) or the airplanes you fly on.

Question is - are they safe _enough?_

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>I'm gonna propose they fully test these scanners before they try to
>tell us they are safe.

They can't, because they are not perfectly safe. Neither is your cellphone, or the lights in your house (they emit terahertz radiation!) or the airplanes you fly on.

Question is - are they safe _enough?_

no, the question is - are they effective?

And the answer is no.

Are they using the pictures to harass people? Already proven.

Are they capable of saving the pictures?
Already proven.

Are they in fact doing so?
Already demonstrated.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Personally I'm not at all affraid of flying.... but we obviously need some screening measures in place. I'm just sick of people bitching and moaning about anything and everything.

Someone's mad because they wouldn't let you carry on your 4oz container of liquid??? Well shit, where have you been for the past 9 years? You didn't think to put it in your checked baggage? Tough shit, you should have known better so quit bitching about it.

I'm sick of people accepting anything, no matter what, because they feel it makes them safer.

No every one checks in luggage.
And I'd rather not buy $3 bottles of water when I have plenty at home. The liquid ban is pretty much the dumbest one of them all.

[billvon 3,109]

>no, the question is - are they effective?

That's a separate question, and is a lot more complicated.

Are they effective in discovering items hidden under clothing? Yes.

Will they "make us safer?" (i.e. reduce the chances of another hijacking) - that's unclear. Unfortunately, the only time we will know for sure is after a hijacking that one of these devices might have prevented.

[ridestrong 1]

Quote

Quote

Someone's mad because they wouldn't let you carry on your 4oz container of liquid??? Well shit, where have you been for the past 9 years? You didn't think to put it in your checked baggage? Tough shit, you should have known better so quit bitching about it.

Big difference between making someone throw away their shampoo or mouthwash or putting their hands in your pants. Yes they do that. They don't reach in and grab you, but they are putting hands under your clothes.

My point is, if they bitch about something as minuscule as that they will bitch about anything.

*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.*
----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.----

[okalb 104]

Quote

Someone's mad because they wouldn't let you carry on your 4oz container of liquid??? Well shit, where have you been for the past 9 years? You didn't think to put it in your checked baggage? Tough shit, you should have known better so quit bitching about it.

I wasn't bitching about not being able to carry it on. I wasn't even bitching about the liquid limits dumb as they may be. I was bitching about the lazy, under trained drones that the TSA hires to pretend to make us all safer. I fly at least twice a week. I probably go through security more in a month than the average American goes through in years. I can go on for days about the stupidity that I see at the "security" checkpoints. One trip I got to my destination and found a 12 inch flathead screwdriver that I had forgotten was in my backpack. I carry that backpack on with me so it went through security screening. As long as they hire morons, don't give them the proper training and pay them too little, security at the airports will continue to be an illusion. All they are doing at this point is wasting peoples time and annoying everyone to keep that illusion going.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[nigel99 616]

Quote

>Are you saying that the media are wrong and that there are no x-ray
>based machines?

I don't know. The "new scanners" that everyone is talking about (the ones that give you an image of the person minus clothing) are terahertz devices. Someone may be using X-ray based devices to scan people, but I haven't seen any.

But based on their track record, I have a feeling the media got it wrong.

Not sure how accurate Wikipedia is but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray says that backscatter x-ray are used in some machines. As I say ALL the UK machines are Terahertz and I have no problem with non-ionizing radiation - I am less keen on constantly being x-rayed though.

I have direct experience where a Russian expert predicted against Russian dosimetry rules an outcome from a back x-ray (predicted miscarriage based on dose) whereas the NRPB (National Radialogical Protection Board) felt that the dose was within safe limits. It was some years ago and I forget the levels but Russian limits are/were substantially lower than western or UN guidelines.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>no, the question is - are they effective?

That's a separate question, and is a lot more complicated.

Quote

No, it's the primary question in defending subjecting people to any level of radiation.

Quote

Are they effective in discovering items hidden under clothing? Yes.

It's already been evaluating as doubtful for detecting the recent events used to justify their installation. And it's definitely not going to catch more aggressive attempts (rectal/vaginal insertion)

Quote

Will they "make us safer?" (i.e. reduce the chances of another hijacking) - that's unclear. Unfortunately, the only time we will know for sure is after a hijacking that one of these devices might have prevented.

and again, last Christmas's event was stopped by a passenger, and it's unlikely that this device would have.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[billvon 3,109]

>No, it's the primary question in defending subjecting people to any
>level of radiation.

No, it's not. Radiation is not related to effectiveness.

>And it's definitely not going to catch more aggressive attempts
>(rectal/vaginal insertion)

Agreed. So again, the question is - is the amount of additional information it provides us useful in stopping attacks, even if it will not detect all possible attacks?

Magnetometers will not detect ceramic knives (and they emit ELF radiation.) Still, they seem to have their uses.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>No, it's the primary question in defending subjecting people to any
>level of radiation.

No, it's not. Radiation is not related to effectiveness.

it's simple cost/benefit analysis.

if there is no benefit, then it doesn't matter how cheap or how little the radiation is, or how likely pics of your balls are likely to show up at the office.

[ridestrong 1]

Quote

And I'd rather not buy $3 bottles of water when I have plenty at home.

Again, really?? Listen to yourself...

Quote

The liquid ban is pretty much the dumbest one of them all.

I disagree, they've found that terrorists can blow a large hole in the fuselage with just over a 3oz mixture. But hey, barely worth the deterrence if you can't have your bottle of water from home.

*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.*
----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.----

[billvon 3,109]

>I disagree, they've found that terrorists can blow a large hole in the
>fuselage with just over a 3oz mixture.

Right - and you can make a bomb with nothing but water (free inside the terminal!) a metal bottle (legal to take on board) a power supply (legal) and an AC outlet (also free.) Heck, a lithium ion battery and the right container can make quite an effective bomb. And they still allow people to carry laptops on board.

Now, you could continue the "we must stop them at all costs no matter what we do to travelers" and ban anything with a lithium ion battery. You could ban metal bottles, and water, and anything with a power supply. Indeed, you could ban anything that cannot be proven harmless. But that seems like a foolish approach to me.