Agree that it depends, but, like I said, most stuff would be pretty easy to trace. One would need to be very proactive about choosing to try to hide their tracks for posting.

And just posting from an "anonymous" IP may not be enough, depending on other browsing habits. With things like tracking cookies and such someone could do a decent job of assembling a historical pattern and probably not struggle too much to actually figure out who someone is.

Anonymity on the internet is, for the most part, rather difficult to maintain.

From what I understand though, if you hit the haraSSSSment lottery, the government really does have a beef with you.

Send me a PM with my name. This I gotta see.

...and yet the mandate for "continuous screening" (and wasn't there one also for continuous secondary screening?) has not been lifted, right?

So, what are the good ol boys and gals over at TSA calling it INSTEAD of SSSS?

What if I have a beef with them???

"Continuous screening" was in reference to secondary screenings. That's what it was called when people who didn't alarm were pulled aside. Now, it's no longer called "continuous screening." It's now known as "unpredictable screening."

(Though many TSOs still call it continuous, just as many of us still call the WTMD a "mag" even though it's not, technically, an accurate term anymore, from what I've been told.)

And selectees don't get a new, fancy name, Lumpster. They have just, for the most part, gone away. Leastwise at Huntsville, anyway; like I said, we haven't had anyone with the S-Marks of Doom on their boarding pass in almost a week on my shift. I know it's going to be hard for you to accept it, man, but the SSSS system hasn't been replaced with something far more nefarious and oppressive (and, just for the sake of argument, I'll throw in a � yet).

I'll find out tomorrow whether or not I'm allowed to give the synopsis of what's changed.

I have neither the time, the energy nor the subpoena to gather the information. But that doesn't mean that others cannot do so. Big difference.

PS - YGPM

U-S-Ps! (Our acronym up here for unpredictables). There more or less what mangament is harping on us to do now that we have very little selectees to screen.

Luckily, we can also do unpredictables by having people choosing to use the puffer (the only one we have in the airport!)

And hey, the puffers aren't so bad, unless you consider a few puffs of air nefarious and oppressive... and even good ole' Spiff doesn't mind the puffer as I once recall reading in a thread somewhere.

A significant amount of the labor time which was previously allocated for haraSSSSment selectees has been or is going to be shifted to airside/gate screenings.

Which are somewhat easier for the crafty and knowledgeable traveler to dodge than were SSSS on the bp.

Okay, HSVTSO: Msg. recvd. and understood. UNPREDICTABLE unreasonable search and seizure. A whole new slant on the right way to do the wrong thing. Since you haven't posted since, I assume your leash has been tightened and your handlers aren't allowing you to tell us nasty Grandpa Suspects about the new World Order of public attrition replacing SSSS.

I'm sure it's equally palatable and morally sound.

Well, then this will be fun. Nothing shocks a fellow pax sheeple like demanding in the loudest possible voice to know what was wrong with the original screening where all the machinery inspected you and your carry-ons, and why, since there's so obviously something terribly wrong back at the check-point, all pax on the sterile side aren't being rescreened.
As the TSO's pause to catch their breath, demand, in mock horror/paranoia, to know how they determined which pax the original screening worked for, and which ones it didn't.