All of This TSA Hoopla - Page 5

Not going to argue that most of that money wasn't wasted, but I question whether they're really going to be able to find too many "better people" when it doesn't really boil down to high-paying jobs on an individual level (when it comes to the Screeners themselves).

Diane Rehm is a completely apolitical talk show on NPR, so nobody on it had an ax to grind. The thing about the Israeli method is that they just talk to people--not roughly, politely. They look them in the eyes and ask them specific questions about their trip. And they're trained to read body language and eye movement. You get somebody who freaks out or starts to sweat when having a polite conversation about who they know in town or where they're coming from, and you suddenly have justification for the body search or the backscatter.

I don't think this is scalable. Israel is a really small country with few flights (comparatively speaking) coming in and out of the country.

I would think they'd be able to educate/train some(most?) of the guards in airports for less than the cost of these machines though.

I call bullshit. For 25-30K a year I'm pretty sure plenty of people would like to stand around chatting people up. Hell, you probably need less people per airport to chat people up and therefore salary can be commiserate with the link or higher.

It's not about paying people. It's about being able to recruit people who can do it in such a way that it's effective. Ordinarily, people who work for TSA are morons. I'd be willing to wager that the people who do this for Israel are better compensated than the TSA security jockeys they have at most airports.

You could probably do this for major hubs. But around the country? No way.

I hate quoting from NewsMax, but:

FP blog post quoted in NewsMax article:

Get ready for your close up in the nudie scanner come this Thanksgiving, Tzu. Also, good luck reducing the deficit if we decide to go this route.

I'm not at liberty to say, yt. I do feel comfortable, however, in telling you that there are *lots* of air marshals out there, and I wouldn't be able to tell who they were if I didn't get the secret handshake.

I don't think anyone is suggesting we do exactly what Israel does, but when something works that well, it makes sense to incorporate it rather than paying $2b for machines that violate body sovereignty of citizens while lining the pockets of former security chiefs and Indian corporations.

You should stop there.
Would anyone have ever said that to Bush if he had insisted that the extra money was necessary where national security is concerned? There's such a double standard with Obama.

<3 You sometimes rule, FC!

You notice that the Newsmax article is basically just regurgitating a Bloomberg analysis, right?

Bloomberg is about as reputable as it gets.

Then quote bloomberg, not the selective regurgitation.

I know. I know. I felt dirty quoting from NewsMax, but it was the first thing that came up on my Google search. Plus, the FP blog post is well written, and FP is generally a reputable source.

I was being more tongue-in-cheek about the spending issue, given Tzu's proclivity to have an aneurysm any time the fed gov't spends a dime on something. Personally, all of this airport security stuff is theater (as you've pointed out a couple of times). But, that being said, the people who are going crazy about the scanning and the pat downs are hysterical. My Muslim (and vaguely ethnic looking) friends have been subjected to this kind of intrusion pretty much since 9/12/2001. But when they start patting down white people all hell breaks loose? Give me a break.

My belief is that this anti-TSA rhetoric is part of the general anti-government sentiment spread by the Tea Parties.

I think part of it definitely is anti-government hysteria (and I don't feel comfortable with partisans using this situation as a way to attack Obama, which kind of misses the whole point of an open discourse). Meanwhile, Bush was listening to our phone calls, reading our emails, renditioning people, torturing people, and while people were angry, it didn't make it to the news. I do object to the backscatter machines and the "enhanced" pat downs but you're right about people who are inured to it after a lifetime of profiling.

Saletan's take on the issue. Gawker also has an interesting point about this

Here's what I don't get. There were terrorist attacks before September 11 2001, some even on US soil, both foreign and domestic - and you didn't see such extreme responses as this and people happily arguing to give up their liberties in exchange for safety like you do today even here in this very thread.

There were plane hijckings and bombings throughout the late 20th century, yet nothing like the current response was deferred to and people weren't screaming for it in the general public either.

As an example outside the US, there have been terrorist attacks on UK soil for many decades, first IRA bombs and then Al Quaeda with the odd crazy nutjob thrown into the mix as well (I still remember living in London in '99 during the David Copeland bombings) - but you never saw people refusing to go into pubs in the seventies and eighties and you don't see demands for people to be padded down or scanned before getting onto buses or tube trains in London or anywhere else in the UK today.

It also seems to me that the heightened fear and great gnashing of teeth in American society of the last 9 years has done nothing but give power to the very terrorism they say they want to protect themselves from - the terrorists feeding from the terror and growing powerful as a consequence.

What I'm saying is that living in fear is what these crazy nutjobs want. Changing your life because of their perceived threat - when you have a much greater chance of being killed in a car accident, or accidently electrocuting yourself or having a random congenital heart defect - is exactly the result that your Al Quaedas and their many copycat cells (who I'm convinced have grown in the last decade as they've seen how effective the post-911 fear effect has been) are looking for.

There used to be the concept on behalf of governments and, by extension societies, that 'we don't negotiate with terrorists' - but by living in fear, in giving up the very things that make 'us' different from 'them' isn't American society doing exactly that?

Terrorism has no power if you're not afraid of it. None. That essential truth seems to have disappeared in the mix of a 24 hour news cycle needing to feed th beast and a corporatocracy and political establishment getting serious mileage out of keeping their own citizens in a permanent state of fear (sorry, 'readiness').

Maybe some of you have lived with this reality for half your lives now, maybe others a little more or a little less than that - I remember when people wouldn't give into that shit, would not be afraid and give the concept of terrorism the power it has today.

These scanners and searches are just another symptom of that in my opinion.

None of us want to die, none of us want those we love to be in danger - but living a life of fear - and teaching those we love either directly or by example to live in fear also - is nothing more than a half-life.

We like to tell ourselves we're better than that - remember?

...or is that just an antiquated notion in the 21st century?

Beautifully said, Rain Dog. I completely agree. The 24-hour news cycle with Fox News in there doing bin Laden's work for him and the previous administration's full use of terror as a means to get things done has put us through the looking glass.

And Spook, I haven't looked at Drudge in years but I do fly a lot and for some reason always get pulled out of line for the enhanced treatment. I thought Drudge's power had been somewhat decreased since his traffic went down but I guess the right wing screamers are still taking his cues.

I remember being in elementary school when a car bomber obliterated the guard shack at the front gate to the Naval base where my father was assigned. There was none of this bullshit then. Reagan blamed Libya, we bombed the shit out of the country and killed a few of his kids without even bothering to declare war, Ronnie briefed us all on TV after the fact, Stallone lovingly dedicated Rambo III to the Taliban, and life went on.

Granted, our nation's collective pants-shitting terror of the Soviet boogeyman was sufficient to keep shoveling tax dollars into the military contracting trough at the time. When the Soviets spent themselves into imperial bankruptcy, we were in danger of getting used to peace. Where the hell is the profit in that?

I do not ask why I just comply.

The 21st century slave enjoy your freedoms while they last people.

" They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. "

Benjamin Franklin

Well spoken. A lot of this bullshit would just go away if people could come to grips with the fact that every time you step out your front door there's a minute (statistically speaking EXTREMELY minute) chance some crazy person might kill you. This holds true whether it's an Islamic terrorist or not. There's no such thing as perfect security, and no amount of body scanners or pat-downs or whatever is going to make all people completely safe from harm. Sure, you take reasonable steps in terms of vigilance and security, but with the understanding that when you're dealing with people that are willing to sacrifice their own lives in order to achieve their goals, there are going to be times where they succeed.

But as far as the muted reaction in the past...most of the attacks on US soil prior to 9/11 were failures, and the biggest success I can think of (Oklahoma City) wasn't perpetrated by a foreign national. 9/11 had the distinction of breaking down the walls of "fortress america." Most of the other events were remote...even Americans living abroad don't inspire the ire that 9/11 kicks up, because I think a lot of Americans have the unspoken attitude that if you're abroad, you're accepting a certain level of risk (an attitude probably only enhanced by the fact that many such Americans are military servicemembers, their families, or federal employees). I just don't think the aspect of "bringing it to (and through) our front door" can be underestimated when considering the reaction.

So using my other example of the UK, why are the brits not so terrified of terrorism they don't walk out their front doors?

Because we're not pussies. We invented hooligans, Godammit.

Maybe you were too drunk to notice?

...and scallywags, let's not forget.

And Australia.

Pure layman's speculation on my part, but possibly because the UK had already had their "bubble burst" by things like the Blitz (or even World War I), etc...? As well as generally having a more international perspective due to its' proximity to Europe and all the craziness that's gone on there for centuries? I'm just guessing, though. A lot of Americans still somehow see America as "isolationist" and like to completely ignore the rest of the world (hell, a lot of them still do post-9/11). I don't get that impression from the folks over in the UK. That sort of denial that you're part of a larger world that sometimes doesn't act the way you think it will or want it to.

source

Just out of curiosity, how would folks that have to ride the bus or the subway feel about the new airport security measures being installed for those methods of transportation?

Well, I suppose on the plus side we won't have to worry about that whole unemployment problem anymore, because we'd probably need several million people to fill those "Screener" jobs.

But seriously, as impractical as it would be simply to screen every subway stop and train station, it'd be utterly impossible for public transit buses and the like without rendering the entire system essentially useless (IE limiting pick ups to a few select "hubs" or forcing the driver to pat-down every passenger and check their bags before they get on the bus, making the overall trip time ridiculously long. For public transit systems that already usually fail to break even (much less turn a profit) it'd probably be a death knell.

It's not as impractical as you might think. The airports are the trial run, they will find ways to streamline and improve the methods making it possible for mass transit. You have to remember, these naked body scan images are sent to a central hub for people to screen and give the go to the TSA agents who are ushering passengers through. You don't have to hire millions of personal to handle this, just more people in a call center type environment to screen images and extra security to handle any red flags. Also, remember, we're just talking about major metropolitan hubs here.. New York, LA, Chicago, Atlanta, Miami, Boston etc.... You place them just before the turn centers for people to swipe through and security is on the other side. For buses you could install them in the first two seats, people get on turn around and get the all clear to sit within moments from an ear piece on the bus driver.

They could justify this not only for terrorism but to help eliminate crime, fewer muggings on subway trains, rapes, murders etc.. all at the expense of a little privacy. If it adds a little time to your commute? You should factor that in on your commute, leave 20 minutes earlier. If that is too inconvenient for you... You could buy a car, public transportation isn't a right after all.

And a funny story about Mythbusters' Adam Savage accidentally sneaking two 12" steel blades through the scanner.

WTF TSA?

Warning. If you want not to listen to some douchebag going WOO!WOO!WOO! for a minute, skip the first 55 seconds.

No, it'd have to be pretty much everywhere, not just "major metropolitan hubs." Because if they only do it for the biggest cities, then the bad guys will just blow up a bunch of people in a not-quite-as-big city. Or what about someone who gets on a Greyhound in Topeka that just happens to be headed for New York City?

I don't see a whole lot of effort being put into "streamlining and minimizing" the technology, anyway. Either way, it'll be years, if not decades before it would be feasible for bus lines. To say nothing of the ridiculous expenses involved in outfitting so many buses with "body scanners." Plus, the drivers do have to double as "screeners" because at the moment there's still the "opt out" option for the body scanners.

Of course, not everyone goes through the body scanner now as it stands. Most travelers are still just getting the same "bags (and shoes) through the x-ray, body through the metal detector" pass-through that they've been getting for the past several years.

Please tell me there is a fistbump AND a high/low five combo involved somewhere in the handshake!

I agree, we're talking years away, this isn't something that will be done by next Christmas but the point is.. this is their plan. This comes from the Homeland Security chief.

As to your argument about Topeka? You have to remember... how is a terrorist going to get to Topeka? (probably airplane) and how is he going to get explosives in Topeka if he makes it there? It doesn't make a lot of sense to start out watching Topeka... unless something starts from there (remember they are reactive, not proactive). Remember, these body scanners aren't in EVERY airport they start out in the major ones.

Also, the "randomness" of it all could easily change to make it so that everyone has to pass through it. In that same article they talk about how popular it is and the pat downs are the unpopular ones. Also, if you note the narrative... the "outrage" is over the pat downs not the body scans... but no one mentions that the reason people opt out is because they feel the body scans are so intrusive.

As an idiot who's taken the Greyhound from Dallas to L.A. and back three times, blowing up those buses would be doing every miserable asshole on those hellrides a favor.*


*Kidding, but good lord Greyhound sucks. Great when you're poor, though, and you meet some characters!**

**Mostly methheads and runaways.

30,000 plus people died in car accidents last year in the US alone. If we made everyone drive 10 miles an hour, almost everyone of those deaths could be prevented. There needs to be a safety/utility balance that needs to be made and TSA is failing it.

A Jake smorgasboard.

Someone sent me a link to this underwear with the Fourth Amendment printed on the chest and groin in metallic ink that shows up in the TSA X-rays. They're sold out at the moment, but I'd love to have a pair of the boxer shorts in time for my December 18th flight to Florida.

Shouldn't this be the other way round? Shouldn't the TSA employee be charged with rape?



The gays crave my junk!

Unbelievable. UN-fucking-believable.

I'll second that. What a wonderful world we live in.

Other stories from that site:

Beatles tribute band member shot by Mark David Chapman look alike

Anderson Cooper uses child as “human shield”

Governor Perry of Texas abruptly reverses position on home schooling

Shocked by a misspelled sign from a supporter (pictured), Governor Rick Perry of Texas reversed his support of home schooling. “HOMESCHOLERS[sic] FOR PERRY,” read the sign that caused the Lone Star State governor to have an epiphany.

Ooops. The name probably should've been enough of a tip-off.

Oh come on, the nude also hate you for your freedom.

I LOLed.

Needless to say, this is exactly what I warned about:


Donna D'Errico, 'Baywatch' Star, Says TSA Agent At LAX Singled Her Out for Full Body Scan

http://www.news10.net/news/article.a...=top&catid=188

Pilot posts videos on YouTube detailing flaws in secruity, afterwards TSA revokes his gun permits. Here's a youtube video that shows some of the details, apparently he was asked to remove his videos... I couldn't find them, sure they're out there though but... not that interested in the actual videos, more so the story.

Seems like he was just trying to point out how silly it is to have pilots go through full body scanners \ TSA screenings compared to other airport employee's.

Some days, it's all I can do to tell 'em, "You guys do know we have an axe up there, right?"