POST HERE: Links to articles about WBI/groping
Dec 22, 2010, 12:08 am
#301
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Nashville, TN - BNA
Programs: Hilton Gold, WN RR
Posts: 1,818
No kidding!
Here's more. The U.S. Travel Assoc has released a new survey...
http://www.ustravel.org/sites/defaul...OnePager-1.pdf
Article in US News from a TSA apologist followed by five pages of awesome FTer-type talk in Comments:
http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/a...p-us-safe.html
(I'd quote from article but it's sick-making; skip straight to comments if you don't want to lose your breakfast!!)
Here's more. The U.S. Travel Assoc has released a new survey...
http://www.ustravel.org/sites/defaul...OnePager-1.pdf
• Nearly two in every three air travelers (64%) said they would fly more if security procedures remained as effective but were less intrusive and less time-consuming.
• Travelers would take an average of two to three more trips a year (2.48/year) if the hassle could be reduced without compromising security effectiveness. These additional trips could add $84.6 billion in spending and 888,000 more jobs.
• 80% agree there should be alternative screening measures for American citizens who submit to a background check and meet other risk criteria. In fact, half (50%) of those who have traveled recently “strongly agree” with this.
• Three in four air travelers (74%) support recruiting more professional security personnel who are trained to use personal observation, dogs and sophisticated computer analyses.
• Travelers would take an average of two to three more trips a year (2.48/year) if the hassle could be reduced without compromising security effectiveness. These additional trips could add $84.6 billion in spending and 888,000 more jobs.
• 80% agree there should be alternative screening measures for American citizens who submit to a background check and meet other risk criteria. In fact, half (50%) of those who have traveled recently “strongly agree” with this.
• Three in four air travelers (74%) support recruiting more professional security personnel who are trained to use personal observation, dogs and sophisticated computer analyses.
http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/a...p-us-safe.html
(I'd quote from article but it's sick-making; skip straight to comments if you don't want to lose your breakfast!!)
Last edited by divemistressofthedark; Dec 22, 2010 at 12:38 am
Dec 22, 2010, 5:51 pm
#302
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Chicago, IL
Programs: AA Gold (former Platinum), SPG Gold, SWA, UA, National Car, TSA Disparager Silver
Posts: 119
Here are a couple more relevant articles:
1. A Washington Post article from Libby Copeland that uses some of the time she spent visiting FT and talking to some FTers:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122202129.html
Her framing is primarily one of different degrees of personal privacy in different spheres in the digital age, but she also does mention the individual rights issues more generally as well. I personally find her body image hook in the article to be a bit specious, but that may be a function of my own preferences, your mileage may vary.
2. A Rasmussen article that summarizes the results of several recent Rasmussen polls relating to the role of government:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...t_s_chief_role
1. A Washington Post article from Libby Copeland that uses some of the time she spent visiting FT and talking to some FTers:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122202129.html
Her framing is primarily one of different degrees of personal privacy in different spheres in the digital age, but she also does mention the individual rights issues more generally as well. I personally find her body image hook in the article to be a bit specious, but that may be a function of my own preferences, your mileage may vary.
2. A Rasmussen article that summarizes the results of several recent Rasmussen polls relating to the role of government:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...t_s_chief_role
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey gave Likely U.S. Voters three options in asking what the primary purpose of a government is in an ideal world, and 59% say it’s to protect individual rights and freedom.
Twenty-four percent (24%) believe a government’s primary purpose is to ensure fairness and social justice, while 10% say it’s to manage the economy. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
But nearly half (48%) of American Adults see the government today as a threat to individual rights rather than a protector of those rights. ...
Voters are generally very protective of individual freedoms except in sensitive areas such as national security. Thirty-eight percent (38%), for example, believe the U.S. legal system worries too much about protecting individual rights rather than protecting national security, and just 22% take the opposite view. Thirty-two percent (32%) say the balance is about right.
One-in-three Americans (33%) say the current legal system worries too much about individual rights when it comes to public safety, while just 20% say it worries too much about public safety. Thirty-two percent (32%) believe the balance is about right.
Twenty-four percent (24%) believe a government’s primary purpose is to ensure fairness and social justice, while 10% say it’s to manage the economy. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
But nearly half (48%) of American Adults see the government today as a threat to individual rights rather than a protector of those rights. ...
Voters are generally very protective of individual freedoms except in sensitive areas such as national security. Thirty-eight percent (38%), for example, believe the U.S. legal system worries too much about protecting individual rights rather than protecting national security, and just 22% take the opposite view. Thirty-two percent (32%) say the balance is about right.
One-in-three Americans (33%) say the current legal system worries too much about individual rights when it comes to public safety, while just 20% say it worries too much about public safety. Thirty-two percent (32%) believe the balance is about right.
Dec 24, 2010, 4:41 pm
#304
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Nashville, TN - BNA
Programs: Hilton Gold, WN RR
Posts: 1,818
Important article that needs to be included here for posterity:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122304412.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122304412.html
Firms' lobbying push comes amid rancor on TSA use of airport full-body scanners
Airport screening procedures stir controversy
As holiday travel ramps up, so does controversy over body scanners and pat-downs at the nation's airports.
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 24, 2010; 12:00 AM
The companies that build futuristic airport scanners take a more old-fashioned approach when it comes to pushing their business interests in Washington: hiring dozens of former lawmakers, congressional aides and federal employees as their lobbyists.
About eight of every 10 registered lobbyists who work for scanner-technology companies previously held positions in the government or Congress, most commonly in the homeland security, aviation or intelligence fields, a Washington Post review of lobbying-disclosure forms and other data shows.
Industries routinely employ well-connected lobbyists to seek favorable legislation and regulations in the nation's capital. But the extent of the connections to the federal government is particularly notable given the relatively small size of the scanner industry, which is dominated by half a dozen specialized businesses with heavy investments in airport and border security technology. On K Street as a whole, by contrast, only about one in three lobbyists has previously worked in government.
Many of the scanner companies are also on pace to spend record amounts of money for lobbying this year on Capitol Hill, where they see potential problems as some lawmakers push for limits on airport-security practices. Top scanner businesses have reported spending more than $6 million on lobbying this year, records show. That doesn't include industrial giants such as General Electric, which also dabbles in scanning technology and has spent more than $32 million on lobbying this year.
Airport screening procedures stir controversy
As holiday travel ramps up, so does controversy over body scanners and pat-downs at the nation's airports.
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 24, 2010; 12:00 AM
The companies that build futuristic airport scanners take a more old-fashioned approach when it comes to pushing their business interests in Washington: hiring dozens of former lawmakers, congressional aides and federal employees as their lobbyists.
About eight of every 10 registered lobbyists who work for scanner-technology companies previously held positions in the government or Congress, most commonly in the homeland security, aviation or intelligence fields, a Washington Post review of lobbying-disclosure forms and other data shows.
Industries routinely employ well-connected lobbyists to seek favorable legislation and regulations in the nation's capital. But the extent of the connections to the federal government is particularly notable given the relatively small size of the scanner industry, which is dominated by half a dozen specialized businesses with heavy investments in airport and border security technology. On K Street as a whole, by contrast, only about one in three lobbyists has previously worked in government.
Many of the scanner companies are also on pace to spend record amounts of money for lobbying this year on Capitol Hill, where they see potential problems as some lawmakers push for limits on airport-security practices. Top scanner businesses have reported spending more than $6 million on lobbying this year, records show. That doesn't include industrial giants such as General Electric, which also dabbles in scanning technology and has spent more than $32 million on lobbying this year.
Dec 26, 2010, 11:36 am
#306
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Nashville, TN - BNA
Programs: Hilton Gold, WN RR
Posts: 1,818
Chris Elliott:
http://www.elliott.org/blog/traveler...#comment-59270
(Article contains many FT-type comments vis a vis general overreaching by TSA coupled with poor airline service)
http://www.elliott.org/blog/traveler...#comment-59270
How are you traveling in 2011?
In some ways, like you did this year. And in some ways not, according to a new survey.
Asked what mode of transportation they planned to use in 2011, most respondents indicated they would stay the course by cruising, driving, flying and using mass transport roughly the same as they did in 2010.
However, a significant number of travelers said they intended to fly less and drive more.
The poll of about 500 travelers, conducted last weekend by the Consumer Travel Alliance, suggests next year could be a busy one for motorists, while demand for air travel could weaken slightly.
In some ways, like you did this year. And in some ways not, according to a new survey.
Asked what mode of transportation they planned to use in 2011, most respondents indicated they would stay the course by cruising, driving, flying and using mass transport roughly the same as they did in 2010.
However, a significant number of travelers said they intended to fly less and drive more.
The poll of about 500 travelers, conducted last weekend by the Consumer Travel Alliance, suggests next year could be a busy one for motorists, while demand for air travel could weaken slightly.
Dec 26, 2010, 12:26 pm
#307
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: BHM
Posts: 118
Dec 27, 2010, 10:58 am
#308
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Nashville, TN - BNA
Programs: Hilton Gold, WN RR
Posts: 1,818
From Fredd in another thredd...
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...can27_ST_N.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...can27_ST_N.htm
Study: Body scanners' effectiveness limited
By Alan Levin, USA TODAY
Dec. 26, 2010
The X-ray body scanners increasingly in use at airport security checkpoints across the country cannot detect certain types of explosives and weapons, according to research by two respected academics.
So-called backscatter X-ray machines, which are designed to see through clothing to detect non-metal weapons and explosives, have difficulty differentiating between plastic explosives and human flesh, says a study that appears in the Journal of Transportation Security.
One of the study's authors, Joseph Carlson, a physicist who specializes in testing of medical imaging equipment, says the review was designed to add to the debate over whether the machines, which create blurry images of the body, are worth the intrusion on the public.
By Alan Levin, USA TODAY
Dec. 26, 2010
The X-ray body scanners increasingly in use at airport security checkpoints across the country cannot detect certain types of explosives and weapons, according to research by two respected academics.
So-called backscatter X-ray machines, which are designed to see through clothing to detect non-metal weapons and explosives, have difficulty differentiating between plastic explosives and human flesh, says a study that appears in the Journal of Transportation Security.
One of the study's authors, Joseph Carlson, a physicist who specializes in testing of medical imaging equipment, says the review was designed to add to the debate over whether the machines, which create blurry images of the body, are worth the intrusion on the public.
Dec 27, 2010, 11:02 am
#309
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SEA/YVR/BLI
Programs: UA "Lifetime" Gold, AS MVPG100K, OW Emerald, HH Lifetime Diamond, IC Plat, Marriott Gold, Hertz Gold
Posts: 9,489
Yet some want the efforts (and lobbyists) redoubled in the search for the perfect machine:
[excerpt]
The report on flaws in the new scanners illustrates a struggle faced by the TSA, says Clark Ervin, a former Homeland Security inspector general.
"Trade-offs between imperfect technology and doing nothing are always behind the debate" over how best to plug security holes, Ervin says.
Ervin says he believes body scanners are more effective than metal detectors, but nobody should assume they are foolproof protection against terrorists. The agency needs to pour its efforts into improving the technology, Ervin says.
Dec 27, 2010, 11:07 am
#310
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Insanity.
Dec 28, 2010, 9:14 am
#311
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SEA/YVR/BLI
Programs: UA "Lifetime" Gold, AS MVPG100K, OW Emerald, HH Lifetime Diamond, IC Plat, Marriott Gold, Hertz Gold
Posts: 9,489
Politico column: "The naked truth about scanners"
Punch line?
Citing an ABC report, Crowley said, “There are some major airports who had a 70 percent failure rate at detecting guns, knives, bombs, that they got through in your tests…. So how good can it be when you have major airports with a 70 percent fail rate?”
Napolitano dismissed those results as old and questionable and said, “Let’s set those aside.” One of the real successes of the machines and procedures, Napolitano said, is that they discourage terrorists from even trying to get on planes.
In other words, the machines keep us safe even if they don’t work at all.
“What we know is that you can’t measure [how] the devices … are deterring [terrorists] from going on a plane,” Napolitano said.
“Just people who just are discouraged, thinking they’d be found out,” said Crowley.
“Exactly,” said Napolitano.
In which case, we do not need machines that cost upward of $130,000 each.
All we need are archways made out of $30 or $40 worth of sheet metal that are labeled: “Official Destructo Machine — If You Are a Terrorist, This Machine Will Not Only Zap You, but Put a Picture of Your Private Parts on YouTube.”
That ought to do it.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46836.html
Citing an ABC report, Crowley said, “There are some major airports who had a 70 percent failure rate at detecting guns, knives, bombs, that they got through in your tests…. So how good can it be when you have major airports with a 70 percent fail rate?”
Napolitano dismissed those results as old and questionable and said, “Let’s set those aside.” One of the real successes of the machines and procedures, Napolitano said, is that they discourage terrorists from even trying to get on planes.
In other words, the machines keep us safe even if they don’t work at all.
“What we know is that you can’t measure [how] the devices … are deterring [terrorists] from going on a plane,” Napolitano said.
“Just people who just are discouraged, thinking they’d be found out,” said Crowley.
“Exactly,” said Napolitano.
In which case, we do not need machines that cost upward of $130,000 each.
All we need are archways made out of $30 or $40 worth of sheet metal that are labeled: “Official Destructo Machine — If You Are a Terrorist, This Machine Will Not Only Zap You, but Put a Picture of Your Private Parts on YouTube.”
That ought to do it.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46836.html
Dec 29, 2010, 12:42 pm
#312
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 177
Nice to see an article that is recent, and truthful about the new patdowns. Plenty of support from the readers, too.
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/heal...l_body_pa.html
hmmm. Don't know why there's a redirect. Here's the text:
My full body pat down at Logan Airport
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/heal...l_body_pa.html
hmmm. Don't know why there's a redirect. Here's the text:
My full body pat down at Logan Airport
Posted by Deborah Kotz December 28, 2010 06:25 PM
Last week, I wrote about the safety of the full body imaging scanners at Logan airport that use X-rays to peer through our clothes; just a few hours later, I was faced with the prospect of going through this scanning device, called a backscatter machine, on my way home to Maryland.
I was in a security line at the gate and watched half a dozen folks in front of me head briskly through the standard metal detectors. Home free, I thought, until the security guard motioned for me to head through the backscatter device.
After a moment's hesitation, I chose the fully body pat down. Radiation health experts I previously interviewed told me they didn't trust the machines enough to go through them repeatedly in their frequent travels. And I knew I'd be commuting frequently between my home outside Washington, DC and Boston over the next several months. I figured the pat down would be a painless way to avoid any extra radiation exposure, no matter how small.
While I didn't have a pat-down horror story like the breast cancer survivor forced to show her prosthetic breast, I can tell you that the whole experience was downright embarrassing.
Clearly, the Transportation Security Administration doesn't really want us to opt for the pat-down given that they set up a system where an agent screams "opt out!" whenever someone chooses a pat down. Yes, everyone around me suddenly turned to stare at the renegade bucking the trend -- probably trying to figure out why anyone would be nuts enough to choose to be groped.
Even Hillary Clinton admitted she'd avoid a TSA pat-down if she could, calling it an "offensive" security measure.
"I'm concerned about the radiation dose," I tell the sweet TSA agent who's about to feel me up. She looks as nervous as I feel as she tells me she has no idea about how the machines work. She's more concerned about following protocol, dutifully applying a new pair of rubber gloves so she won't spread any diseases and staring at the ceiling as she tries to remember all the questions she's supposed to ask.
Do you wear any prosthetic devices? Have any metal inside you? Any medical devices attached to your body?
I think of that poor bladder cancer patient whose colostomy bag was burst at a different airport by an overly aggressive pat-down as I answer no to all her questions. I also try not to feel like a criminal as I keep my arms in the air for a full two minutes (not an easy feat) as she runs her hands up and down the inside of my legs and brushes her hands -- palm-side out as if that's supposed to be less invasive -- over my breasts.
The worst, though, was the hands inside the waist-band of my pants. Clearly, this is excessive, I think, despite the fact that I know this poor TSA agent is doing her best to follow protocol.
"Please keep your arms up," she pleads with me repeatedly as I begin to let my arms droop, "I don't want to get in trouble with my bosses."
Do you have any experience with airport pat downs? Let me know your stories.
Last week, I wrote about the safety of the full body imaging scanners at Logan airport that use X-rays to peer through our clothes; just a few hours later, I was faced with the prospect of going through this scanning device, called a backscatter machine, on my way home to Maryland.
I was in a security line at the gate and watched half a dozen folks in front of me head briskly through the standard metal detectors. Home free, I thought, until the security guard motioned for me to head through the backscatter device.
After a moment's hesitation, I chose the fully body pat down. Radiation health experts I previously interviewed told me they didn't trust the machines enough to go through them repeatedly in their frequent travels. And I knew I'd be commuting frequently between my home outside Washington, DC and Boston over the next several months. I figured the pat down would be a painless way to avoid any extra radiation exposure, no matter how small.
While I didn't have a pat-down horror story like the breast cancer survivor forced to show her prosthetic breast, I can tell you that the whole experience was downright embarrassing.
Clearly, the Transportation Security Administration doesn't really want us to opt for the pat-down given that they set up a system where an agent screams "opt out!" whenever someone chooses a pat down. Yes, everyone around me suddenly turned to stare at the renegade bucking the trend -- probably trying to figure out why anyone would be nuts enough to choose to be groped.
Even Hillary Clinton admitted she'd avoid a TSA pat-down if she could, calling it an "offensive" security measure.
"I'm concerned about the radiation dose," I tell the sweet TSA agent who's about to feel me up. She looks as nervous as I feel as she tells me she has no idea about how the machines work. She's more concerned about following protocol, dutifully applying a new pair of rubber gloves so she won't spread any diseases and staring at the ceiling as she tries to remember all the questions she's supposed to ask.
Do you wear any prosthetic devices? Have any metal inside you? Any medical devices attached to your body?
I think of that poor bladder cancer patient whose colostomy bag was burst at a different airport by an overly aggressive pat-down as I answer no to all her questions. I also try not to feel like a criminal as I keep my arms in the air for a full two minutes (not an easy feat) as she runs her hands up and down the inside of my legs and brushes her hands -- palm-side out as if that's supposed to be less invasive -- over my breasts.
The worst, though, was the hands inside the waist-band of my pants. Clearly, this is excessive, I think, despite the fact that I know this poor TSA agent is doing her best to follow protocol.
"Please keep your arms up," she pleads with me repeatedly as I begin to let my arms droop, "I don't want to get in trouble with my bosses."
Do you have any experience with airport pat downs? Let me know your stories.
Dec 29, 2010, 11:45 pm
#313
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Nashville, TN - BNA
Programs: Hilton Gold, WN RR
Posts: 1,818
Way awesome geekfest from The Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...ackdown/68647/
Fab anti-TSA rant from across the pond (tho written by a Yank). Could deffo. use some comments from TS/Sers as there's a mouthy AFS type posting:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...port-terrorism
http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...ackdown/68647/
Year-End Bonus: More Scientist-on-Scientist Smackdown
Dec 29 2010, 7:04 PM ET
I've had a change of heart. After announcing previously that I would forgo additional back-and-forth from scientists about the hazards, or safety, of new TSA scanning machines, I've received enough interesting mail that I think I should offer at least one more installment...
First, from a professor at a major research university:
>>I'm not sure whether the continuing lunatic exploits of the TSA have been driven more by terrorized bureaucrats or greedy lobbyists, but in either case I despair for the future.
I'm a tenured Professor of Theoretical Physics at [a major university], and I've been on the faculty for [several decades]. I'm not sure I agree with everything your physics correspondents have written over the past few days, but I certainly agree fully with one thing: In spite of the nominal radiation limits cited for the xray and submillimeter wave AIT machines, there is absolutely no assurance of the amount of radiation actually delivered to an individual subject. Perhaps if each person were issued a dosimeter print-out or a radiation technician were on the job full-time at each machine, there would be some reason to trust the technology. At present the TSA's attitude seems to be, gee, what a neat technology, let's radiate the entire population and look for problems later. The situation is bizarre, particularly in view of the stringent safety precautions mandated in other parts of American life. Um, thanks, but the radiation machines are not for me or my family.
Dec 29 2010, 7:04 PM ET
I've had a change of heart. After announcing previously that I would forgo additional back-and-forth from scientists about the hazards, or safety, of new TSA scanning machines, I've received enough interesting mail that I think I should offer at least one more installment...
First, from a professor at a major research university:
>>I'm not sure whether the continuing lunatic exploits of the TSA have been driven more by terrorized bureaucrats or greedy lobbyists, but in either case I despair for the future.
I'm a tenured Professor of Theoretical Physics at [a major university], and I've been on the faculty for [several decades]. I'm not sure I agree with everything your physics correspondents have written over the past few days, but I certainly agree fully with one thing: In spite of the nominal radiation limits cited for the xray and submillimeter wave AIT machines, there is absolutely no assurance of the amount of radiation actually delivered to an individual subject. Perhaps if each person were issued a dosimeter print-out or a radiation technician were on the job full-time at each machine, there would be some reason to trust the technology. At present the TSA's attitude seems to be, gee, what a neat technology, let's radiate the entire population and look for problems later. The situation is bizarre, particularly in view of the stringent safety precautions mandated in other parts of American life. Um, thanks, but the radiation machines are not for me or my family.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...port-terrorism
The TSA's state-mandated molestation
The humiliations of the patdown policy, which Janet Napolitano wants to expand, are an Orwellian assault on American freedom
The holiday brought bittersweet news: unless the Transportation Security Authority disbands, I'll never see a certain friend of mine again. His long-term unemployment finally ended, and next month, he starts a great new job. But it's in Texas, too far to drive; from my place in Connecticut to his new home in San Antonio is 2,000 miles – 500 more than separates London from Moscow.
As an American – that is, someone considered lucky to get seven consecutive days off work – the only way I could possibly travel such distance is to fly. But flying includes the legal obligation I submit to having my genitalia groped by some TSA thug wearing the same latex gloves already shoved down nine dozen other strangers' underwear. There's only two ways an American flyer can reliably avoid this: be rich enough to buy your own plane, or a high-ranking congressman or other VIP exempt from the indignities they inflict upon ordinary citizens.
The ACLU maintains an ever-growing database of these indignities, many so graphic they're illegal to broadcast over public airwaves. Actions that violate FCC standards are embraced by the TSA. (snip)
I couldn't. I know my limits: can't sprout wings and fly, spin straw into gold, or ooze obedience toward anyone who'd treat me as the TSA treats Melissa, Mary, Chris and countless others. And once I said something rude – even an obscenity-free comment like "Have fun on your knees, sniffing my crotch like the dog that you are" [see top photo] – I'd be arrested on terrorism charges and the media would run sympathetic stories about poor TSA agents disliked for merely following orders. Self-described patriots would say "Disrespecting authority is unAmerican" and recommend harsh punishment for me.
The humiliations of the patdown policy, which Janet Napolitano wants to expand, are an Orwellian assault on American freedom
The holiday brought bittersweet news: unless the Transportation Security Authority disbands, I'll never see a certain friend of mine again. His long-term unemployment finally ended, and next month, he starts a great new job. But it's in Texas, too far to drive; from my place in Connecticut to his new home in San Antonio is 2,000 miles – 500 more than separates London from Moscow.
As an American – that is, someone considered lucky to get seven consecutive days off work – the only way I could possibly travel such distance is to fly. But flying includes the legal obligation I submit to having my genitalia groped by some TSA thug wearing the same latex gloves already shoved down nine dozen other strangers' underwear. There's only two ways an American flyer can reliably avoid this: be rich enough to buy your own plane, or a high-ranking congressman or other VIP exempt from the indignities they inflict upon ordinary citizens.
The ACLU maintains an ever-growing database of these indignities, many so graphic they're illegal to broadcast over public airwaves. Actions that violate FCC standards are embraced by the TSA. (snip)
I couldn't. I know my limits: can't sprout wings and fly, spin straw into gold, or ooze obedience toward anyone who'd treat me as the TSA treats Melissa, Mary, Chris and countless others. And once I said something rude – even an obscenity-free comment like "Have fun on your knees, sniffing my crotch like the dog that you are" [see top photo] – I'd be arrested on terrorism charges and the media would run sympathetic stories about poor TSA agents disliked for merely following orders. Self-described patriots would say "Disrespecting authority is unAmerican" and recommend harsh punishment for me.
Last edited by divemistressofthedark; Dec 29, 2010 at 11:57 pm
Jan 4, 2011, 8:48 am
#314
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Chicago, IL
Programs: AA Gold (former Platinum), SPG Gold, SWA, UA, National Car, TSA Disparager Silver
Posts: 119
An LA Times article from Doyle McManus about terrorism generally, not the TSA specifically, but making the point that we overreact to terrorist threats.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...2998659.column
The more we expand this kind of narrative and discussion among the population generally, the better (IMO).
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...2998659.column
Californians know what to do in an earthquake, and Kansans know what to do in a tornado, but the U.S. as a whole is prepared only to overreact to even a small act of terrorism.
Jan 4, 2011, 10:26 am
#315
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 733
Interesting video on CNN. Not necessarily about the undies the dude is selling, but check out the anchor comments afterwards:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bes...r.hln?hpt=Sbin
Not verbatim...
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bes...r.hln?hpt=Sbin
Not verbatim...
Robin Meade
I wasn't even asked if I would want to go through the scanner. They were just like, "Step in there, step in there." I said, "Wait a minute, I didn't agree to this." I was amazed that I think a lot of people went through not even knowing what it was. I got groped.
I wasn't even asked if I would want to go through the scanner. They were just like, "Step in there, step in there." I said, "Wait a minute, I didn't agree to this." I was amazed that I think a lot of people went through not even knowing what it was. I got groped.
Weather Dude
They didn't care. When I went through Las Vegas last month I didn't care. It was the shorter line. I just didn't want to get touched!
They didn't care. When I went through Las Vegas last month I didn't care. It was the shorter line. I just didn't want to get touched!