Share/E-mail This Story

Email This



Pilot Not Allowed Through Security After He Refuses 'Naked' Backscatter Scan

from the security-theater dept

There's been a lot of talk lately about the new body scanners at airports, which create a "virtually naked" image of you -- bringing up all sorts of privacy concerns, especially as reports are coming out about how the machines can record images. Many people, concerned about how these machines operate, have asked not to use them, and there are usually other options. Boing Boing points us to the story of a working, uniformed pilot (working for ExpressJet) who refused to go through the backscatter scanner. After being directed to a normal metal detector, and declared an "opt-out," he was told he needed to be patted down by security. He refused, noting that it was intrusive and that he had made it through the normal metal detector without a problem (the same security review he'd been given for many years as a pilot -- even in that same airport).

At that point, the TSA got upset, and a bunch of other folks got involved, including the airport police. He was detained, asked all sorts of questions (some he refused to answer), and not allowed to leave when he asked. At one point he was told he was free to leave, but then was stopped again and told he was not allowed to go until he spoke to one more person. The pilot, Michael Roberts, noted during his explanation of what happened that he's actually taught the TSA-mandated security training program at ExpressJet. The whole story is yet another example of security theater in action -- people just doing things because it's on the checklist, not because it makes anyone more secure.
"What do you mean I 'should know better'? Are you scolding me? Have I done something wrong?"

"I'm not saying you've done something wrong. But you have to go through security screening if you want to enter the facility."

"Understood. I've been going through security screening right here in this line for five years and never blown up an airplane, broken any laws, made any threats, or had a government agent call my boss in Houston. And you guys have never tried to touch me or see me naked that whole time. But, if that's what it's come to now, I don't want to enter the facility that badly."


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Lark LaTroy, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 8:45am

    Fun with the TSA

    I don't fly any longer. I refuse to be a part of the sham "security" in airports. If I can't get there by car, train, bus, or boat, I don't need to be there. That said, IF I am forced to fly again, I'll be wearing my kilt, in the traditional way. The way I figure it, if I'm going to be violated, I want a boner for the trouble. I'm a firm believer in getting my entertainment where I can. Usually, at the expense of others. The TSA is no exception.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 8:47am

    tsa are republicans that are still in the closet

    the title explains it all

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Mike C. (profile), Oct 20th, 2010 @ 8:58am

    Obligatory...

    XKCD has already addressed how we're supposed to handle this...

    http://xkcd.com/779/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 9:05am

    Phew, disaster averted

    Its a good thing that this pilot (who we trust with the steering wheel of the plane) was stopped. He might have tried to sneak a pair of nail clippers on board.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Rose M. Welch (profile), Oct 20th, 2010 @ 9:06am

    Re: Fun with the TSA

    Yes. That is awesome.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    really, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 9:10am

    Really

    He should just submit...just because he is a pilot does not make him immune to security, even if he knows bob the scanner....refused to answer questions....its called security for a reason....checklists are designed to ensure compliance. Iif he was just waved through, blew up a plane (for whatever reason) the TSA would be getting a black eye instead....Good for the TSA.

    "If one morning I walked on top of the water across the Potomac River, the headline that afternoon would read 'President Can't Swim'".
    - Lyndon B. Johnson

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    really, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 9:11am

    Really

    He should just submit...just because he is a pilot does not make him immune to security, even if he knows bob the scanner....refused to answer questions....its called security for a reason....checklists are designed to ensure compliance. Iif he was just waved through, blew up a plane (for whatever reason) the TSA would be getting a black eye instead....Good for the TSA.

    "If one morning I walked on top of the water across the Potomac River, the headline that afternoon would read 'President Can't Swim'".
    - Lyndon B. Johnson

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 9:11am

    The scanner is designed to avoid intrusive pat-downs. Old metal detectors don't cut it anymore - weaponry does not have to be metal anymore. Whining about the TSA won't stop necessary change.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Scote, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 9:13am

    Real Reason: Piot refused **pat down** screening.

    The title of this post is misleading. The pilot opted out of the naked scanner, true, but the real reason he wasn't allowed to pass the security checkpoint was that he refused the alternative to the naked scanner: a full and invasive pat down search.

    I agree with the pilot that our rights are being taken away, but at least get the story straight.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Oct 20th, 2010 @ 9:14am

    Re: Re: Fun with the TSA

    Might I also suggest a liberal application of chocolate syrup?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Crosbie Fitch (profile), Oct 20th, 2010 @ 9:18am

    Ridiculous

    The ridiculous thing about it all is that the 9/11 'pilots' would have passed through fine. They weren't carrying guns or explosives now were they? If they took the effort to learn to fly jets they would have taken the effort to learn karate (if box cutters had been prohibited), or would have purchased a nice glass bottle of Whisky in the airport.

    The best thing to do is to put everyone's luggage on a robot controlled plane, and all the people on another, which is configured as a nudist sauna/massage parlour.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 9:19am

    The "backscatter" is at the detector side: subject gets blasted.

    With what's said to be the equivalent of a chest X-ray. But whatever the dose, to go through frequently as pilots do, risks cancer. Besides that, saying you want a hand scan is supposed to bypass the scanner. My guess is they're gradually phasing that out de facto.

    We need more pilots and travellers to just say NO to ever more intrusive violations of personal liberties.

    Freedom is the ability to say no.
    From Frederic Brown, in "The Great Explosion".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    AJ, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 9:24am

    Re: Really

    He could just choose not to participate with said "security" and just go home. Seem's that's exactly what he did....... I refuse to go through a scanner, and no one is going to put their hands on me. If that means I can't fly, then I guess i don't fly.... there is always a choice....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    SomeGuy (profile), Oct 20th, 2010 @ 9:24am

    Re: Really

    No, he shouldn't "just submit." He wasn't asking to bypass security entirely, but he refused to be subject to unnecessary and degrading treatment, either by a backscanner or through a pat-down. He had passed through the metal detector the same as 90% or more of everyone else. what's more, *as a pilot* he IS entrusted with more trust. It doesn't matter if he can't get a bomb on the plane if he's *driving it* already. And finally, to "just submit" because that's what's on the checklist is ridiculous; unless these measures actually improve security, they are unnecessary and uncalled for.

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    -Benjamin Franklin

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 9:25am

    Re: Really

    if he ... blew up a plane (for whatever reason) the TSA would be getting a black eye ....Good for the TSA.

    I'm going to say this very slowly:
    He ... pilots ... the ... plane.
    No matter how thorough a search is, you can't stop him from killing everyone on board.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 9:27am

    Also, TSA likely intentionally hassled, to make an example of him.

    You can't believe *anything* gov't thugs say, starting with the supposedly vital need for this "security". Locking cockpit doors would have prevented (the official version of) 9/11. It's difficult to believe that so simple a measure was never put in place; even without weapons, with cockpit access a given, a gang of twenty or more could take control of a plane.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    a-dub (profile), Oct 20th, 2010 @ 9:31am

    I would like to shake this guys hand.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 9:32am

    Re: Also, TSA likely intentionally hassled, to make an example of him.

    IIRC, Bruce Schneier says that, of all the so-called security measures which started being used after 9/11, locking the cockpit doors was the only one which actually improved security.

    It is not that it was never put in place; it is only that it was put in place too late.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Michael, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 9:32am

    Re:

    So you would like a machine that takes and stores a naked image of you to be used because traditional metal detectors are ineffective?

    Here is some news - traditional metal detectors have ALWAYS been ineffective. Here is a guy who was detained by the TSA for refusing to allow them to violate his civil liberties. Good for him. If we continue to allow our government to take away our rights in the name of security, we are going to be living in a police state very soon. We may be already. Becoming a police state does not usually happen overnight. It is more like a frog in cool water on the stove - if you slowly boil it, it is dead before it figures out what is happening.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    ZD, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 9:34am

    Re: Really

    So you think it is good to give up your right to privacy is if you get fake security or even any real security in return?

    Paranoia is a serious problem with this country lately. In 234 years, how many times has this country been attacked by another country? Two or three times depending on your guidlines? How many terrorist attacks have we've seen over the decades that resulted in a lot of people dead? Ten to twenty or so, depending again on your guidlines? I'd say this country already had a good track record and it certanly wasn't getting worse. However, more security is still demanded by many in the hopes of some self preservation dillusion. Meanwhile, we bitch about long waiting times at the airport and invasive government tactics granted by the patriot act.

    TL;DR: you can't have your cake and eat it too. I for one would prefer privacy over the illusion of security any day.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 9:37am

    Re:

    if you really think that by going thru these scanners u are more protected, you really need to become more informed.
    Even as of today, over 90 percent of the items going under the planes are not searched in any way. The postal services, Fedex, UPS and others use those planes every day and they have no scanning processes for the boxes. No bomb making scent scanners, nothing!.
    So, if they don't search under the plane, why invade someones privacy like that?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Robert, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 9:40am

    I believe pilots can carry guns in the cockpit, so...

    what is a back scan or pat down supposed to do? It's like strip searching the FBI agent who guarding the President's back. He is so close to the very thing he is protecting that is assumed he should be a person of trust. I think this is insane for pilots. I suspect it is more of an angry TSA agent who did not like his attitude and was going to give it back to him.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Oct 20th, 2010 @ 9:40am

    The rumor mill ....

    We should ask the person who scans lady gaga if she actually is a hermaphrodite ... or if thats just hype ...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Brian, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 9:47am

    Scam

    Look up the CEO of the scanner company, former head of homeland security. Hmmm.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 9:49am

    Re: Really

    It's called security so people will submit, not that it really secures anything.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 9:51am

    Re: tsa are republicans that are still in the closet

    I guess that could be true... although technically "conservatives" should be against things that violate personal rights and "liberals" should be for that which is the greater good. The parties just have nothing to do with their alleged politics anymore. Now they are just talking points.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Daryl, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 9:54am

    Scandal..

    This would solve the current Brett Favre/Jenn Sterger Scandal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Oct 20th, 2010 @ 9:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Fun with the TSA

    You mean, less than 3.4 ounces, right?

    Did you know that you can't have gel insoles in your shoes? But, that 7 inch flathead screwdriver-- yeah, that's got a green light.

    Fake security pisses me off.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    infowars, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 9:57am

    I can't wait

    I have a flight planned for the end of the month. I hope they try to run me through the naked body scanners so I can "opt-out" too..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Oct 20th, 2010 @ 10:01am

    Re: Re: Really

    This.

    Were they checking him for explosives, or perhaps a gun? All the has to do is push forward and everyone dies. In fact, maybe pilots *should* carry guns and in return we can bring bottled water on the plane.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Oct 20th, 2010 @ 10:06am

    Re: Obligatory...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Vigo, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 10:15am

    Re: Re: Really

    I'm going to say this very slowly:
    He ... pilots ... the ... plane.
    No matter how thorough a search is, you can't stop him from killing everyone on board.


    I'm glad somebody pointed out a very obvious point here. How many thousands of ways can a pilot kill everyone on a plane without bringing a weapon on board? I'm no pilot, but i'm sure they could do everything from dumping the fuel to just simply pushing down on the yoke.

    In fact, pilots could carry guns on board with them when flying (after training)...that is until our president ended the program last year. So now we are disarming our pilots and telling them that they have to get virtually naked or get groped every day to do their job? I guess the 4th amendment means nothing to the government anymore.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    b-dub, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 10:19am

    Re:

    Just his hand?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Oct 20th, 2010 @ 10:21am

    Re: Re: Really

    Even if he doesn't want to kill *everyone* on board, he has *an axe* right next to his seat (for hacking through wreckage in the event of a crash.)

    If I were a pilot, I'd try to bring an axe through security. Dollars to doughnuts the petty tyrants would confiscate it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 10:22am

    "good for the tsa" comments just piss me off.

    You deserve exactly how they treat you. I hope they give you a colonoscopy next.

    Enough is a enough.

    I refuse these body scanners as well, but I will submit to a pat down or a metal detector.

    I shouldn't have to show someone a naked picture of me just to prove I'm an innocent passenger trying to do his job halfway across the country.

    For all you security nuts out there, let me put it to you this way: If you lock an airplane cockpit down to where somenoe can't break into it, the effective death toll on the plane is a few hundred, maybe more if the plane debris lands in a populated area. You're not going to get anywhere near the 9/11 death toll.

    So the bad guys see this and decide it's easier to find somewhere else with the same level of population density, but FAR less security. What are you going to do when the terrorists start bombing, malls, crowded night clubs, train stations, sports arenas and other highly populated areas?

    Quit following faulty logic that has no end. And quit subjecting me to pointless body scans because you can't handle the idea that we are targets for mass murderers. Leave me be TSA, I have a job to do.

    Next time you see a guy getting a pat down and clogging the security line at the airport, think fondly of me and my rights as a person.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 10:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Really

    While I agree with your intent with the first portion of your argument, I think it must be noted that allowing guns on any airplane, for reasons of passenger safety, should be stopped with every possible measure.

    While US Marshals and pilots were carrying guns onto airplanes.they were likely only loaded with rubber bullets that would not penetrate the quite thin sheet of aluminum surrounding the airplane if fired. However, allowing anyone and everyone to bring a gun onto a plane raises the risk of one passenger having loaded the gun with regular ammunition with the potential for a misfire in the event of extreme turbulence.

    I'm not a heavy handed supporter of the 4th amendment by any means, but I'm also not for stripping rights granted by the constitution. However, in certain circumstances, just as with shouting 'fire' in a full theater, the right needs to be slightly more limited for the safety of fellow citizens.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 11:00am

    Re: Re: Really

    He choose to not participate and was held for questioning. That's the problem I have with this story. If he refused to go through their security for whatever reason, he hasn't done anything wrong and shouldn't be held for questioning.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 11:01am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Really

    You are what is known as an apologist, along with the original commenter.

    Nothing the TSA has done has improved security on airplanes.

    If you don't understand why thats the case, then you don't understand the fundamental concept of terrorism. A word which has been mis-used so much in the last 10 years that it has begun to lose all meaning ... and that might actually be dangerous.

    The 9/11 attack itself was the only thing that ensured we were safer on planes. Now passengers won't sit by idle when a plane is hi-jacked - they will react. Far more importantly than that, terrorist are unlikely to attack by plane hi-jack again (enough people are "terrified" of planes.) If there is another attack, it will come in some other form so that we can totally over-react and try to lock down that new place/thing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Daryl, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 11:02am

    Re:

    ""Next time you see a guy getting a pat down and clogging the security line at the airport, think fondly of me and my rights as a person.""

    Im sure there will be a seperate line for people who refuse to go through this new scanner. So you and your "I HAVE RIGHTS" posse can go clog up your own line.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Robert, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 11:03am

    I refuse to comply.

    I will not comply to this invasion of privacy. It's the duty of each and every American to stand up against things like this.

    Only then will we have any real 'change'.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    Brandon (profile), Oct 20th, 2010 @ 11:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really

    I think the point he was trying to make (though not very clearly) was the following.

    Airplane + thin aircraft aluminum + maximum flight altitude + metal bullet = explosive decompression & high-likely hood of crash.

    Now I'd be for guns on planes by passengers if each was required to carry 'non-penetrating' ammo (i.e. rubber bullets, etc..) when coming onto a plane but I agree that having penetrating bullets on something that is pressurized is generally a bad idea. Granted a 9mm bullet might not penetrate the fuselage (though can cause a lot of damage through ricochet) but I wouldn't doubt a larger caliber couldn't. Keep in mind, these aren't military craft we are talking about, they aren't armored.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 11:16am

    Re: Re: Really

    He choose to go home, but he was detained. Thats the problem here

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    Crosbie Fitch (profile), Oct 20th, 2010 @ 11:20am

    Alan Sillitoe

    Alan Sillitoe had a pretty good grasp of the distinction between effective security measures and theatre (aka totalitarian repression). I recommend Travels in Nihilon if you want your eyes opened.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Security Geek, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 11:31am

    N80W15735 Rainbow Dr

    1) Watch Mythbusters. They conclusively proved that a bullet penetrating the skin/window/whatever of a plane does NOT cause explosive decompression like Hollywood always shows. I know its a shock that movies do not depict real life, but try to deal with it.
    2) Airplanes are more secure now precisely because nobody will sit idly by while being hijacked anymore - weapons or no weapons.
    3) Still, as I fly a lot I appreciate some attempt at security because I'd rather not have to prove something to a bad guy at 30,000 feet.
    4) While I don't care if people see me naked (and NOBODY wants to see that) I do appreciate that there are those who are much more modest and may refuse the search - the price is you can't fly - your choice.
    5) There is technology that uses the backscatter to superimpose the "objects" security is looking for onto a generic human form. If you think about it, the only thing security should care about is the stuff, not the body, so why show it at all?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    Simple Mind (profile), Oct 20th, 2010 @ 11:42am

    not one or the other

    I recently flew out of SJC and I was both scanned and patted down. (first time for each) Are you suggesting I was violated in some way? Maybe the guy liked what he saw on the scanner. I am not sensitive, so I was not offended. But I do think it is stupid. I had to throw away the coke I was drinking, too. How silly is that? Am I going to poison myself, or suddenly explode?

    I was pretty offended by the way a fat woman shoved to get ahead of me in line for the metal detector, though. Have some manners, people! Did that 15-20 sec earlier she got into the airport by doing that really count for anything?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 11:45am

    They're really, they're quite fearful, is my theory. They see us on stage with tight trousers. We've got, you know, armadillos in our trousers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    icon
    Simple Mind (profile), Oct 20th, 2010 @ 11:51am

    really one or the other?

    When I recently flew I was both scanned and then patted down (and I had to go through metal detector, too). After reading all your posts how it is one or the other, I feel violated. Who do I sue?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Drizzt, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 11:52am

    Not a pilot but someone travelling often, triggered a "Code 5" at Indianapolis Airport. It's quite common these days to be harassed for insisting on your civil liberties, your rights and your privacy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    Gabriel Tane (profile), Oct 20th, 2010 @ 12:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Fun with the TSA

    How about those 13" long metal knitting needles? My girlfrind was allowed on a plane with a pair of those. Can't even think of all the things I could do with a couple of those badboys.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    Christoffer G. Thomsen (profile), Oct 20th, 2010 @ 12:05pm

    These scanners increase the risk of getting cancer (http://is.gd/ga4Ks-), and they are very intrusive. I've stopped flying since they introduced them, airport security was bad enough already.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 12:08pm

    Free drinks to whoever ends up in the papers for going through security with a tinfoil-wrapped zucchini a la This is Spin̈al Tap.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    PRMan, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 12:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really

    = You didn't watch this episode of Mythbusters where it was busted or the follow-up episode where it was busted again.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    Gabriel Tane (profile), Oct 20th, 2010 @ 12:17pm

    Re:

    But do the backscatter scanners go to 11? If they do, I'd opt out too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    ZD, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 12:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really

    I'm the AC that discussed guns on planes. The point I was making is precisely the point being made by Brandon.

    I am certainly not an apologist of the situation. In fact, I think 9/11 has led to people being less safe. Consider that people have less freedoms as a result of 9/11 and many are constantly monitored by the government for no apparent reason (look to the CA man that found the tracking device). The justice system has eroded away the Bill of Rights to shameful and in my opinion, criminal lengths.

    Also consider that while people appeared to be less hesitant to take down a suspect person initially after the attack, the government has since instituted an elaborate theatre of security. This gives the indication that the TSA would, in fact, be able to stop most if not all future attacks that would be accomplished with airplanes or airports. Because of this, people are certainly much less likely to be vigilant if they see security everywhere and assume everything must be under control. However, to prove this point, several different situations have occured where people were able to smuggle the necessary items to assemble a small explosive on board the plane since 2001 and the TSA was unable to detect anything to stop them.

    The TSA is useless and has also caused the public to be useless in this instance too. I think you need to review the situation yourself.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 12:26pm

    I posted earlier against these scanners, but I will say this.

    You people aren't thinking like killers. Yes, he pilots the plane and can kill everyone intentionally. But forcing him to go through the metal detectors and security is a check against someone else forcing him under duress to do something with the plane.

    Also, let's not assume that all terrorism is about hijacking and blowing stuff up. (Bioterrorism for example)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    icon
    Gabriel Tane (profile), Oct 20th, 2010 @ 12:27pm

    Re: Re: Really

    Umm... actually, I think he was to be a passenger on this particular flight. So how does him flying other planes make him somehow immune to the possibility of other forms of mischief? Agreed, the 'security' measures in place are a joke and don't do a thing, but him being a pilot does not exempt him from suspicion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Oct 20th, 2010 @ 12:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Really

    > While US Marshals and pilots were carrying guns
    > onto airplanes.they were likely only loaded
    > with rubber bullets that would not penetrate
    > the quite thin sheet of aluminum surrounding the
    > airplane if fired.

    We had this exact same discussion a few months ago in another thread on TechDirt and someone made exact same (false) claim that federal agents who carry guns aboard commerical airliners use rubber bullets.

    As noted above, that's completely untrue. I'm a federal agent (though not an Air Marshal) and I fly armed all the time and I can assure you that we all use the same ammunition as we use anywhere else. The same is true of firearms carried by pilots.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    icon
    Free Capitalist (profile), Oct 20th, 2010 @ 12:29pm

    Re:

    Whining about the TSA won't stop necessary change.

    You are correct. The airline industry was way overdue for a massive downward correction in valuation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Oct 20th, 2010 @ 12:37pm

    Re: I believe pilots can carry guns in the cockpit, so...

    > It's like strip searching the FBI agent who
    > guarding the President's back. He is so close
    > to the very thing he is protecting that is
    > assumed he should be a person of trust.

    The FBI doesn't protect the president. The Secret Service does. It's far too important a job to be left up to the Bureau to do...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    icon
    Chris-Mouse (profile), Oct 20th, 2010 @ 12:40pm

    Body scanners are useless for security.

    This Video was posted on Youtube last january. It shows just how effective those scanners are. Turn on the CC for english subtitles.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    icon
    ZD (profile), Oct 20th, 2010 @ 12:40pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really

    I never claimed it was true and honestly wasn't sure but rather hopeful that rubber bullets would be used. It is of my opinion that using regular ammunition is extremely dangerous in use on a pressurized aircraft. Small punctures to the shell of the plane main body are no big deal. However, the thinness of the body also allows the bullet to travel through the skin at a continued high rate of velocity and into the fuel tanks located in the wings if improperly aimed and fired or at a close enough range, through a window which will depressurize the cabin extremely quickly, and almost certainly cause most everyone to pass out.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    Bob McCullough, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 1:00pm

    TSA Security

    As an Air transport Mechanic, I too, have had run-ins with airline security. When I was doing flight mech work with ATA I would go through airport security at different airports several times a day. Many times there would be different requirements at different airports.

    I always wore my ATA badge with a picture ID at all airports. I even wore ATA's maintenance uniform with my name on it. Even my home airport both LAX and SFO required me to go thru security if my badge was not coded for a bypass door. This was annoying and slowed down my ability to work.

    With todays technology: fingerprint readers, super-computer speeds to access data bases, iris scanners, face recognition software, etc. there is a better and more streamlined method to provide BOTH security and easy-of-access.

    The current system allows the Terrorist to win by tormenting the innocent, and causing the spending of billions of $ for security that isn't truly secure.
    We have created another bloated bureacracy heavy on manpower but light on the innovative uses of capital and expertise.

    Why do we not apply this rigorous search requirements to stadiums when they are filled with 40,000 to 50,000 people?

    We need to and can do much better.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 1:02pm

    Re:

    "Also, let's not assume that all terrorism is about hijacking and blowing stuff up. (Bioterrorism for example)"

    And in that example the obvious route is to release the agent in the check in lounge infecting thousands of people heading in hundreds of destinations. I don't think a body scanner at the gate is going to help there much.

    I'm all for security, but intrusive measures that provide the illusion of security without any real benefit are IMO purely there to scare the populace into accepting more and more instusion and control and less rights. Perhaps I'm a cynic, but almost all these "security measures" seem most times to have other agenda with little to do with security and more about money or control of the populace.

    I'll admit I don't know the statistics, but I'd risk a reasonable wager than when you take out all the false positives (I.e. little Johnny just forgot to stick his pocket knife in checked baggage type finds) the number of darstardly plots foiled with this technology will be pretty close to zero.

    In a "free country", part of being free is to accept that sometimes the freedom is more important and that others who don't believe it are going to use those very freedoms to attack you. Making us remove those freedoms in the name of preservation is often the very goal those attackers are after. Should we be handing them the game in a default?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Oct 20th, 2010 @ 1:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really

    However, allowing anyone and everyone to bring a gun onto a plane

    Sure, but... that's not what anybody is talking about. The pilot is not "anyone and everyone".

    However, the thinness of the body also allows the bullet to travel through the skin at a continued high rate of velocity and into the fuel tanks located in the wings if improperly aimed and fired or at a close enough range

    I believe the Air Marshals use frangible ammunition, which would break apart upon hitting the aluminum skin. There would probably be a hole, but the bullet wouldn't continue on to do any more damage. This is because of exactly the concern you mention, in addition to the possibility of damaging things like hydraulic lines.

    through a window which will depressurize the cabin extremely quickly, and almost certainly cause most everyone to pass out.

    I know the safety briefings are really boring, but have you really never noticed the part where oxygen masks drop down if the cabin loses pressure?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    icon
    Gabriel Tane (profile), Oct 20th, 2010 @ 1:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really

    "...through a window which will depressurize the cabin extremely quickly, and almost certainly cause most everyone to pass out".
    A) do you have evidence or reference to back this statement up? I'm no expert, but I doubt it would "almost certainly cause most everyone to pass out"
    B) so? The cockpit is not going to depressurize 'extremely quickly', so the pilots would be ok. Everyone else will wake up with a headache.
    C) you mean the perpetrator would be incapacitated by being rendered unconscious by the depressurization? Sweet. Mission accomplished.
    D) as stated by nacsh, O2 masks would deploy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 2:02pm

    Re: Re:

    "I'm sure there will be a separate line for people who refuse to go through this new scanner. So you and your "I HAVE RIGHTS" posse can go clog up your own line."

    You scare me. The fact you don't recognize the rights of others means you are OK with taking them away. BTW, corrected your spelling errors when I quoted your ignorant ass.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    identicon
    smokedgoldeye, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 2:55pm

    Disney World to children: get naked on the way -- or don't bother coming

    Robert A. Iger
    President & C.E.O.
    Walt Disney Co.
    500 South Buena Vista Street
    Burbank, CA 91521
    email c/o TWDC.Corp.Communications@disney.com

    Dear Mr. Iger,

    I am writing for your advice about how to best enjoy a great Walt Disney World experience with the new prohibitive TSA/commercial airlines "security" shenanigans.

    My wife and I have two children (one strapping 14 year old boy and our beautiful little girl, 12). They would just love to go to Disney World and we would love to take them -- but now we don't know how to get there!

    Please allow me to graphically explain. On the way to Disney World at the airport, United States government agents now force children and their parents to make a difficult choice between:

    1. a dose of ionizing radiation concentrated almost entirely on your skin to create a nude image on the government's computer screen. They call this Whole Body Imaging, or WBI. Please see sample image at http://www.prlog.org/10891401-airlin...a-tyranny.html of a male subject. Note that the detail of the image, even before zooming in, allows the viewer to see that the glans is uncircumcised.

    2. a government agent using his gloved fingers to grope/frisk/probe the exterior of the child's entire clothed body (including genital manipulation) in order to ascertain the same detail of information as the WBI would have done (see above). They call this Enhanced Pat-down.

    3. police escort to interrogation by TSA security as to your reasons for refusing the above two choices...followed by confirmation that you did not verbally abuse any government agents...followed by being permitted to turn around and go home...to watch the Disney Channel and call Disney for hotel plus plane tickets refund?

    As you can imagine, none of these choices appeals to us. Other than a fleet of Disney private planes or opening scaled-down Disney World resorts all across the country, how do you recommend that paying customers get to your resorts if decent caring for their children now prohibits them from using commercial airlines?

    Now that you are aware that children must submit to nude photography or genital manipulation in order to enjoy the Disney experience (and on the way home), your silence on this issue may be seen by many as passive agreement with this new pathway to your business, which I am sure is not the case.

    Please confirm.

    Yours truly,

    Disney World Prospective Customer

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 3:23pm

    And all the while, the airlines are struggling because people are reluctant to fly.

    I remember when it was such a joy, we gleefully paid high prices for the privilege. Now so many folks are afraid of or disgusted by TSA theater, they won't fly at any price--not even when it is free.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Oct 20th, 2010 @ 3:27pm

    Re: Re: tsa are republicans that are still in the closet

    ya know, if those names were in any way applicable, the 'conservatives' would be against unnecessary change, and the liberals would be fore greater personal freedoms (or possibly less government control of the marketplace. i forget which...)

    just, you know, an fyi of what the terms actually meant before american politicians got hold of them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    identicon
    Jes Lookin, Oct 20th, 2010 @ 3:29pm

    How About Caution ?

    Observing the TSA and it's employees, I'd expect the scanning process to use an unregulated, unapproved (like FDA), uncertified/calibrated device operated by unregulated or certified personnel. And if you asked for evidence of certification, you'd get treated stupidly. Note I'm not mentioning the data gathered - which has already been handled stupidly.
    So... to protect your corneas and privacy, I'd limit exposure to these devices. They should be considered high energy imaging systems and approved/operated as such.
    Unfortunately, the TSA personnel will be the test dummies for this experiment.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    icon
    Dementia (profile), Oct 20th, 2010 @ 5:24pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really

    Don't to mention that the weapons carried under circumstances like that are usually loaded with frangible ammunition. After initial impact it, essentially, turns into dust thereby eliminating excessive penetration.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    icon
    Dementia (profile), Oct 20th, 2010 @ 5:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really

    Been a long day. Don't should be Not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Oct 20th, 2010 @ 9:27pm

    Re: Re: Also, TSA likely intentionally hassled, to make an example of him.

    Looking at Schneier's recollection, I doubt it was to hassle him. It's just that the policies have been getting more and more invasive.

    It's just like a frog boiling. If you start at a high temperature, they'd jump out. But slowly turn it up...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    identicon
    iss, Oct 21st, 2010 @ 1:36am

    Re: Really

    AFAIR It's not obligatory and you can refuse going trough the scanner. The pilot should have the same right to refuse.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    icon
    techflaws.org (profile), Oct 21st, 2010 @ 2:14am

    Re: Re: Re:

    BTW, corrected your spelling errors when I quoted your ignorant ass.

    Which certainly doesn't make your point any more spot on.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 21st, 2010 @ 3:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Which certainly doesn't make your point any more spot on."

    What? You don't want any rights? Not the right to wear an ugly shirt in public? The right to cream in your coffee? The right not to get put in a 3" cubed box by a policemen for no readily identifiable reason? The right not to be arrested for 'possesion of an offensive eyebrow'?

    Degrees matter and rights matter. Real people say stop at some point. If you're not one of these feel free to go get yourself locked up in Guantanamo Bay or somewhere similar for a 'period of reflection'. I understand saying nasty things about your leader can get you there.... tell him you don't like his nose. If you don't have any rights that should be enough to do the job.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    icon
    Gabriel Tane (profile), Oct 21st, 2010 @ 6:22am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "What? You don't want any rights? Not the right to wear an ugly shirt in public? The right to cream in your coffee? The right not to get put in a 3" cubed box by a policemen for no readily identifiable reason? The right not to be arrested for 'possesion of an offensive eyebrow'?"

    Ok... I'm all for being treated fairly and respectfully, but let's get something straight.

    Flying is NOT A RIGHT. It is a service provided by a private entity that does NOT have to continue extending that service to you. They do NOT have to make the experience nice and cozy for you. This Private Entity's service is REGULATED by the government under the guise of "for your safety"... and I agree that they have gone WAY beyond the interests of safety and more into the realm of "hey, look at us! We're doing stuff to respond to your fears!" And let's face it... that's the ONLY reason you're limited to 3oz bottles of liquid: not because it's actually keeping people from being able to make explosives w/ carryon items, but because it makes the TSA appear to actually be doing something. But the fact remains that they can do whatever the hell they want as long as they don't break any laws and don't discriminate against you for one of the protected categories (sorry fatties, obesity is NOT a protected category... you just don't fit in the seats).

    I don't mean to be an ass about this, but it irks me when people yell about their 'rights' that don't actually exist and never existed in the first place. The only 'protected rights' are the ones in the Bill of Rights and Constitution. You don't have the right to go to any restaurant you want if those resturants don't want to seat you. You don't have the right to be served alcohol at a bar if they don't want to serve it to you. You don't have the right to buy something at a store if they don't want to sell it to you. You don't have the right to get on a plane if they don't think you should be on it. You don't have the right to cream in your coffee if no one wants to sell it to you

    Yes, I know you were using hyperbole to make your point, but let's keep it at least a LITTLE realistic. No one is taking away your precious coffee creamer.

    Don't want your 'right to privacy' violated when you go to the airport? DON'T GO TO THE AIRPORT!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    identicon
    Daryl, Oct 21st, 2010 @ 8:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Bingo.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 21st, 2010 @ 8:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Flying is NOT A RIGHT. It is a service provided by a private entity that does NOT have to continue extending that service to you.




    A fair point as far as it goes. But this is where common sense diverges from the letter of the law. Modern life is so inextricably linked with services provided by corporate entities that the ultimate (and yes a ludicrous extreme) expression of your argument is that in order to have rights one needs to dwell on ones own land in a forest somewhere and catch and kill ones own meals. Even then you'd be hard pushed not to interact with a corproate entity that, by implication is free to violate your rights with their service.


    Surely if one has a right to privacy, common sense (if not law) dictates that the right *should* be enforced across the board against *any* unreasonable seach and seizure no matter it's source?


    Also, while the method is defined by a corporate entity, the driver behind it is governmental regulation. I'm by no mean's a lawyer, but would it not be reasonable to argue that as an agent of the government in this matter they shoudl be bound by the strictures placed on government?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    identicon
    Daryl, Oct 21st, 2010 @ 10:05am

    ""Even then you'd be hard pushed not to interact with a corproate entity that, by implication is free to violate your rights with their service.""

    Except it is not violating your rights because you are not required to walk into that airport and get on that plane. That should have been clear to you by now.

    ""Surely if one has a right to privacy, common sense (if not law) dictates that the right *should* be enforced across the board against *any* unreasonable seach and seizure no matter it's source?""

    The "unreasonable" part of it is what you have been trying to argue this whole time. Is it unreasonable for me to say that if you don't like it, don't fly?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 21st, 2010 @ 10:14am

    Re:

    The "unreasonable" part of it is what you have been trying to argue this whole time. Is it unreasonable for me to say that if you don't like it, don't fly?
    Yes it is, that's exactly my point. I have a right to freedom of movement. In the modern world this means I must use transport unless I want to walk everywhere (i.e. live in the wilderness)). If the airline can do this as you suggest, what's to stop the train companies saying "You cannot travel on a train unless you allow us to electronically tag you to make sure you don't go into first class". The car company can then make whatever use they want of all that data they collect from your GPS and can install a microphone in your car to record all your conversations and stop the car if you say something nasty about it "If I don't like it don't drive", right?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82.  
    identicon
    Daryl, Oct 21st, 2010 @ 11:01am

    Re: Re:

    You have a right to freedom of movement huh... Do you have a right to drive a car 100MPH? If you don't have a license, do you think you still have a right to drive a car just because you must use transport? Do you have a right to ride a bicycle in the middle of traffic? Do you have a right to fly a plane wherever and however you want just because you are a licensed pilot?

    I can go on for days. Those questions are ludicrous yes, but so was your statement.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83.  
    icon
    Gabriel Tane (profile), Oct 21st, 2010 @ 11:08am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "But this is where common sense diverges from the letter of the law."
    Sorry, but we are talking about the law here. It is not now nor has it ever been the intention for the federal, state or local government to legally enforce common sense or courtesy. It doesn't matter how inextribably linked life is with these services, they are NOT your right.

    And I'm not saying not to interact with any corporate entities... I'm saying don't interact with those that you believe are treating you unfairly or poorly. It is your choice. Is it wrong if every airport supports the use of something people don't like? Maybe, maybe not... it is certainly a bad business idea. Yes, the scanners are the TSA's decision and they are a government agency... but if you don't like the fact that they're there, contact your representative to change the law. Don't just cry foul about how your 'right to fly' was infringed.
    "Surely if one has a right to privacy, common sense (if not law) dictates that the right *should* be enforced across the board against *any* unreasonable seach and seizure no matter it's source?"

    No, not really. You DO have rights to privacy through the 4th Amendment, but it is by no means universal. 1) A legal warrant would allow the dismissal of your privacy. 2) The Patriot Act allows the dismissal of your privacy without otherwise 'due course' in some circumstances (seriously... the Patriot Act should scare the shit out of you!).

    All that being said, that's just to keep the GOVERNMENT from searching you. As a private entity, one of the requirements to obtain my services could very well be a full nude body-cavity search. If you decline, you just don't get my services. It doesn't matter what common sense has to say about it or what the guidelines the Government would adhere to... but you have no protected to rights to receive my services at your own convenience and under your own conditions.
    "Also, while the method is defined by a corporate entity, the driver behind it is governmental regulation. I'm by no mean's a lawyer, but would it not be reasonable to argue that as an agent of the government in this matter they shoudl be bound by the strictures placed on government?"

    I don't think we need to talk about the relationship of an agent to its principle here... the TSA is the government for this argument. And the 4th Amendment does provide protection against illegal search and seizure...
    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    The government is not supposed to subject you to UNLAWFUL searches. To be lawful, the search must be done with a warrant or probable cause. Now, since the Constitution does not limit the definition of Probable Cause, it's up to the law enforcement to make the call, and the courts to correct them if they're wrong. So far, the enforcement agency has been exercising it's discretion on P.C., and no courts have challenged it. So until that happens, it's legal. Once again, if you don't like it, work with your elected representatives to change the law, or challange the law through the proper court channels.

    It may be your right to not be subjected to unnecessary and unlawful searches, but in this case, it's neither. And, again, if you don't like it, DON'T FLY.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84.  
    icon
    Gabriel Tane (profile), Oct 21st, 2010 @ 11:19am

    Re: Re:

    "I have a right to freedom of movement."
    NO. YOU. DON'T.
    Can I make it any more clear than that? There is NO LAW OR AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS YOU WILL NOT BE RESTRICTED IN YOUR TRAVELS! Just like a driver's license is not your right, it's your privilige and comes with responsibility. You break those responsibilities and they revoke it. Where's your 'right to free travels' there?

    We just happen to NOT have a system in place that requires any kind of checkpoints between states or other municipalities. But there is certainly NO law that says we can't... except maybe the part of the Constitution that retains the rights of the States to self-govern for the most part. But guess what... that has NOTHING to do with your rights as an individual.

    "If the airline can do this as you suggest, what's to stop the train companies saying "You cannot travel on a train unless you allow us to electronically tag you to make sure you don't go into first class". "
    There is absolutely nothing to stop them from doing this except the fact that they would lose business... but there is no law making that action illegal.
    The car company can then make whatever use they want of all that data they collect from your GPS and can install a microphone in your car to record all your conversations and stop the car if you say something nasty about it..."
    Again, they can do that all they want. There is no law to say they can't. They are NOT a government agency. The protection comes in that they cannot give personal information to other entities.
    ""If I don't like it don't drive", right?"
    Now you're getting it. But you're not quite there. As I implied in another post, don't drive a car made by a manufacturer that does those things you don't like. Your convenience is not a proteced freedom by ANY law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Oct 21st, 2010 @ 12:04pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    There is NO LAW OR AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS YOU WILL NOT BE RESTRICTED IN YOUR TRAVELS!

    10th Amendment to the US Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    Where in the Constitution is the Federal government empowered to restrict my movements? Our system of government is set up such that we have the liberty to do anything not prohibited by law. You seem to suggest that we have only those liberties explicitly granted by law.

    The freedom of the TSA is or ought not to be completely unlimited. Their requirement of securing air travel must be balanced against citizens' rights. I'm sure if they started requiring universal strip searches, a court would have no trouble declaring it to be an unreasonable invasion of privacy, and would not simply say if you don't like it, don't fly. Where the line is between that and where we are now I don't know. They're not actually that far apart.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Oct 21st, 2010 @ 12:04pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    There is NO LAW OR AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS YOU WILL NOT BE RESTRICTED IN YOUR TRAVELS!

    10th Amendment to the US Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    Where in the Constitution is the Federal government empowered to restrict my movements? Our system of government is set up such that we have the liberty to do anything not prohibited by law. You seem to suggest that we have only those liberties explicitly granted by law.

    The freedom of the TSA is or ought not to be completely unlimited. Their requirement of securing air travel must be balanced against citizens' rights. I'm sure if they started requiring universal strip searches, a court would have no trouble declaring it to be an unreasonable invasion of privacy, and would not simply say if you don't like it, don't fly. Where the line is between that and where we are now I don't know. They're not actually that far apart.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Oct 21st, 2010 @ 12:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Uh, no idea why the double post.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Oct 21st, 2010 @ 12:11pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Normally I ignore people who type more than two words in all caps, but you seem to have a pretty good head on your shoulders, so I read anyway.

    Although not in the constitution, the supreme court (among others) *have* said that we not only have a right to travel but also, we have a right to fly. More specifically:
    A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation or issuing an order or procedurethat will have a significant impact on the accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for
    handicapped individuals.

    So, does this change your view on the topic?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  89.  
    icon
    Gabriel Tane (profile), Oct 21st, 2010 @ 1:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I see what you mean with the 10th Amendment. I don't believe it's intended to give an individual carte blanch freedoms and rights to do whatever they want at the expense of a service provider's rights to security.

    I agree that the TSA has been implementing too many new rules in, what would appear to be, violation of the 10th and I'll be interested to see this play out. And that whole thing is more fuel for the debate over whether our Federal Government is too big (as I believe it is).

    But my initial point is that a private entity does NOT have to protect what you perceive as your rights just because you say so. Otherwise, we'd be able to demand any business be transacted anonymously without having give our name, date of birth, SSN, etc. for things like buying a car or taking out a loan. This battlecry of "protect my privacy" has spawned some pretty interesting regulations (such as the Do Not Call) to protect us, and those we don't seem to have a problem. But when those same 'protections' are to secure others or the providers of services (other passengers or the airline that would like to keep their planes safe), we seem to get up in arms over it.

    Now I do subscribe to the belief that those who give up freedoms for temporary security deserve neither, and agree that the TSA has done nothing but reinforce a sence of terror without adding any security. But we have as a society demonstrated a vast inability to govern ourselves. We cry and cry how 4 men (supposedly, there are few witnesses) took over planes with box cutters and how the TSA and the airlines didn’t do enough to stop them. Those hijackers were severely outnumbered and only one (again, if you believe the reports) was taken down. Now THAT is effective security. If we as a people would show some damned backbone and stop with this foolish, over-inflated sense of entitlement, we wouldn’t need to demand the government step in whenever someone hurts our widdle feewings.

    But to your point, yes I concede I was incorrect about the 10th and that we DO have SOME rights of privacy, but I don't think it's as universal as some would like it to be.

    I cruised right over the 10th and didn't see it laughing at me. :/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  90.  
    icon
    Gabriel Tane (profile), Oct 21st, 2010 @ 2:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Well, you're right that we have a public right of transit and thru the navigable airspace, but that doesn't mean any particular airline has to take us.
    They have the right to refuse service for any reason except descrimination against the protected classes. You're free to drive wherever you want (except private lands), but that doesn't mean the government has to give you a driver's license or let you drive without one; and it doesn't mean that someone HAS to give you a car or they're blocking your right of free travel.

    Also, the law you cited SEEMS to say that the government will not impose restrictions against free travel, and the last part only talks about availability to the handicapped. Which the ADA adds handicapped persons to the protected list.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  91.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Oct 21st, 2010 @ 8:57pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I can go on for days. Those questions are ludicrous

    Daryl said two things in a row that are true. What is going on here?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  92.  
    identicon
    Gene Cavanaugh, Oct 21st, 2010 @ 11:11pm

    The "Special" Pilot

    "The whole story is yet another example of security theater in action -- people just doing things because it's on the checklist, not because it makes anyone more secure."

    Not at all. If we truly have a democracy, then everyone needs to follow the rules. This pilot wasn't all that upset about the scan, he was saying "I don't need to follow the rules" - and if he doesn't, I don't, and Osama Bin Laden (arguably) doesn't (well, Osama would likely be in chains, so let's make an exception of Osama).

    This guy was on a "Heil ME trip" - NO, he should not be an exception to the rules, unless the proper authorities decide pilots as a whole should be excepted (but then, what about the "pilots" who flew into the Twin Towers?).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  93.  
    icon
    Gabriel Tane (profile), Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 5:31am

    Re: The "Special" Pilot

    Did you read the full article the guy wrote? It wasn't "wah wah wah, they made me go thru security", it was more about how he was treated like a suspect and a terrorist because he felt it unnecessary to be prodded and poked just because he didn't want to go through the backscatter scanner. He was treated very rudely by a just about everyone involved and more than one official damn near detained him illegally. Anyone could have made this argument and refused all of these measures. The fact that he was a uniformed pilot in an airport just adds a bit of salt to the wound.

    Normally, uniformed pilots are exempted from some of the normal security measures (such as removing shoes). The 'pilots' who flew into the towers that you bring up (to ring the 9/11 bell) were not uniformed, looked and acted like normal passengers, and were not carrying anything that was banned at the time. So if I, as a person trained to fly a plane, board one while wearing normal clothes, after going thru security carrying one of the many items that could be used as weapons (again, 13" metal knitting needles can be very useful), how has all this new security done anything? How does letting uniformed pilots bypass some of the measures increased the risk I would already represent?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  94.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 12:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "I don't mean to be an ass about this, but it irks me when people yell about their 'rights' that don't actually exist and never existed in the first place. The only 'protected rights' are the ones in the Bill of Rights and Constitution. You don't have the right to go to any restaurant you want if those resturants don't want to seat you. You don't have the right to be served alcohol at a bar if they don't want to serve it to you. You don't have the right to buy something at a store if they don't want to sell it to you. You don't have the right to get on a plane if they don't think you should be on it. You don't have the right to cream in your coffee if no one wants to sell it to you "

    This really sounds like Jim Crow for all...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  95.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 12:26pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    You have a right to freedom of movement huh... Do you have a right to drive a car 100MPH? If you don't have a license, do you think you still have a right to drive a car just because you must use transport? Do you have a right to ride a bicycle in the middle of traffic? Do you have a right to fly a plane wherever and however you want just because you are a licensed pilot?


    It depends (and I'm talking about basic human rights, not law here), because my doing so could significantly impact your human rights not to be endangered. If on the other hand I choose to do so somewhere "safe" then yes I am (or at least should be) free to do so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  96.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 12:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    don't mean to be an ass about this, but it irks me when people yell about their 'rights' that don't actually exist and never existed in the first place. The only 'protected rights' are the ones in the Bill of Rights and Constitution. You don't have the right to go to any restaurant you want if those resturants don't want to seat you. You don't have the right to be served alcohol at a bar if they don't want to serve it to you. You don't have the right to buy something at a store if they don't want to sell it to you. You don't have the right to get on a plane if they don't think you should be on it. You don't have the right to cream in your coffee if no one wants to sell it to you



    Sam: In 1787, there was a sizable block of delegates who were initially opposed to the Bill of Rights. This is what a member of the Georgia delegation had to say by way of opposition; 'If we list a set of rights, some fools in the future are going to claim that people are entitled only to those rights enumerated and no others.' So the Framers knew...

    Harrison: Were you just calling me a fool, Mr. Seaborn?

    Sam: I wasn't calling you a fool, sir. The brand new state of Georgia was

    - West Wing by Aaron Sorkin - one of the best things to come out of America IMO

    I think the brand new state of Georgia may well have been calling you a fool also.

    I think you and I are talking about 2 different things. You are talking about the letter of the law as it stands, whereas I am talking about basic humanity and human rights and suggesting that no-one whether individual, government or corporation should be able to run roughshod over them. Clearly in any healthy society the exact point where the line is drawn is up for debate and will change as values change, but the litmus test of whether something is allowed should not be "Because I say so and I have all the money.".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  97.  
    identicon
    Teresita, Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 1:55pm

    Pilot refuse the naked scanner

    First of all, your not naked and why is this pilot making a stink about this. We have to do it so why shouldn't he. The U.S. is in war we have enemies that want to hurt us. Doesn't anyone remember 911. The war against the U.S. will never be over until the people that pose a threat are dead. This pilot either wants money and that is why he is suing or he has something to hide. Everyone men, women, and children should be subjected to the scanner PERIOD. and employees are no exception to the rules on the contrary they are allowed in secure area - if anyone has to be checked is the employees in and out. If this pilot has a problem or if anyone has a problem with going through the body scanner then he or she should not fly - drive or don't travel. If I fly I will without any problems participate in any security measure that the airport staff wants me to endure. I have nothing to hide but I demand everyone scanned that way I know I am safe while I am in the air. Doesn't everyone want to feel safe in the air or do we want a repeat of 911. don't think for a minute those asswipes won't try it again.

    Stay safe by doing as requested by airport security.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  98.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 3:19pm

    Re: Pilot refuse the naked scanner

    Doesn't everyone want to feel safe in the air or do we want a repeat of 911. don't think for a minute those asswipes won't try it again.

    Stay safe by doing as requested by airport security.



    You might *want* to feel safe and what you suggest I'm sure will give you a nice false sense of security.

    But in the real world *none* of that will stop the completely clean, recordless, background checked, security cleared, white guy who's been scanned, x-rayed, blood tested and strip searched and just happens to have a job that allows him to open the back door to let the guy with the bomb through because he's been paid enough to retire and buy an island somewhyere. The bad guys are smarter than that - hell anyone with above a primary school education is smarter than that.

    And none of that will stop the same people picking a train, or a cruise liner, or a shopping centre or a bridge or a stadium or whatever place people like you have left the faintest shred of civil liberty. So what's the point of removing them exactly?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  99.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 4:03pm

    Re: Pilot refuse the naked scanner

    Doesn't everyone want to feel safe in the air or do we want a repeat of 911.

    That does seem more important to most than actually being safe. For example, Isreal has really stringent airline security that apparently works quite well, but it's expensive and hard to do, and takes a lot longer for passengers to get through than our security theater.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  100.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 5:37pm

    Re: Re: tsa are republicans that are still in the closet

    "conservatives" should be against things that violate personal rights and "liberals" should be for that which is the greater good

    Conservative are just against things that violate *their* personal rights. They have nothing against violating everybody else's.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  101.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 5:43pm

    Re: Re: Re: Really

    In fact, maybe pilots *should* carry guns

    Some do, and they still can't have nail clippers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  102.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 5:46pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Really

    While US Marshals and pilots were carrying guns onto airplanes.they were likely only loaded with rubber bullets that would not penetrate the quite thin sheet of aluminum surrounding the airplane if fired.

    Umm, no, I know one and you're full of it. They have regular bullets. The myth of "explosive decompression" from a bullet hole is just that: a myth, perpetuated by idiots.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  103.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 5:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really

    Airplane + thin aircraft aluminum + maximum flight altitude + metal bullet = explosive decompression & high-likely hood of crash.

    Which is a load of bull.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  104.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 5:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really

    I never claimed it was true

    So who said you did?

    It is of my opinion that using regular ammunition is extremely dangerous in use on a pressurized aircraft.

    Yeah, for the bad guys. I've got news for you, bullets can hurt people outside of airplanes too.

    However, the thinness of the body also allows the bullet to travel through the skin at a continued high rate of velocity and into the fuel tanks located in the wings if improperly aimed and fired or at a close enough range, through a window which will depressurize the cabin extremely quickly,

    Gee, maybe that's why they're trained on how to use them, huh? You know, shooting the pilot in the head would be bad for the airplane too, so that's another thing they're told not to do. You see, the thing is, not everyone is an idiot.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  105.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 6:01pm

    Re: Re: Really

    No, he shouldn't "just submit." He wasn't asking to bypass security entirely, but he refused to be subject to unnecessary and degrading treatment,

    But that's how you maintain control over people so that they "submit" to your will.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  106.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 6:03pm

    Re:

    Whining about the TSA won't stop necessary change.

    It isn't necessary. Your being an apologist for them won't shut people up either.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  107.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 6:07pm

    Re: not one or the other

    I am not sensitive, so I was not offended.

    Some people have a sense of decency, some don't.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  108.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 6:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Flying is NOT A RIGHT. It is a service provided by a private entity that does NOT have to continue extending that service to you.

    I guess I need to educate your ignorant, apologetic ass on this. The entity doing this, the TSA, is NOT a "private entity" providing a "private service". It is a government agency.

    The only 'protected rights' are the ones in the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

    Hey, guess what, genius. Government agencies are exactly the ones the Constitution is supposed to protect us from.

    The next time you feel like getting up on your libertarian high horse about "private entities", maybe you should first check to see if the subject of the discussion actually *is* one.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  109.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 6:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    As a private entity, one of the requirements to obtain my services could very well be a full nude body-cavity search. If you decline, you just don't get my services. It doesn't matter what common sense has to say about it or what the guidelines the Government would adhere to... but you have no protected to rights to receive my services at your own convenience and under your own conditions.

    And as a private employer, I could very well require my employees to submit to a "full nude body-cavity search". It doesn't matter what common sense has to say about it or what the guidelines the Government would adhere to... but you have no protected to rights to receive my employment at your own convenience and under your own conditions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  110.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 6:41pm

    Re: TSA Security

    Why do we not apply this rigorous search requirements to stadiums when they are filled with 40,000 to 50,000 people?

    We're working up to it. We just haven't gotten there quite yet. Be patient.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  111.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 23rd, 2010 @ 5:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And as a private employer, I could very well require my employees to submit to a "full nude body-cavity search". It doesn't matter what common sense has to say about it or what the guidelines the Government would adhere to... but you have no protected to rights to receive my employment at your own convenience and under your own conditions.


    Oh I don't know, I'm not fully familiar with the US constitution, nor am I a lawyer, but I'd imagine that a savvy lawyer could probably make a reasonable agument about self incrimination with that one.


    Be that is it may, you might also want to look at what the brand new state of Georgia said about you in 1787 too. If you want the US consitution to mean *anything* it has to be more than a set of strictly interpreted parameters of law - it has to be a set of ideas by which you shape your country.


    Perhaps I'm an idealist, but true democracy comes from the concept that everyone *respects* each other's boundaries and laws come from the moral imperatives that drive the society and there are no more laws than are absolutely neccessary to govern the trickier interactions, not laws to govern every tiny aspect of everyone's life.
    To pretend that more and more and stricter and stricter laws can somehow prevent atrocities from happening is naive and ultimately leads to running people over with tanks in Times Square.
    You (the US) want to be an example to the world? Try living up to ideals. We already got plenty of examples of the other thing thanks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  112.  
    identicon
    Sotto Rotishimo, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 12:28am

    Re: Fun with the TSA

    I completely agree. This IS a violation of rights. No one should have to go through a full body x-ray. There is simply no need for it. If the people doing the searching and patting down were actually skilled at it in the first place, these machines would not be necessary. Alas, we have become the land of the oppressed and act like sheep. We do as we are told and we don't fight back near enough. America the Paranoid has us by the short hairs (so to speak) and this policy IS invasive and it IS a nuisance and it IS wrong. How many jets have been taken over by their pilots lately? This was just stupid. However, I won't fly anymore with these idiotic rules in place. I don't wish to eventually glow in the dark or end up with cancer due to some idiot 'tech' that doesn't know the proper setting on said machine.

    No thank you, I hope all the sheeple in America enjoy their new status. What's next? Nightly curfews for adults? They might have bombs! Will we see scanners in grocery stores? They might be shoplifting! And I had thought it was stupid enough when people were suddenly forced to stop bringing bottles of liquids with them, that is really dumb. Pretty soon everyone will have to fly naked and chained the the seats after extensive cavity searches. Sheesh!

    There is a way to stop this type of bullying, but no one will. It would require everyone to refuse to have their personal privacy invaded. The government should be respectful of its people and the people should indeed be in charge of the government, but that has changed too. These really are the last days of the sweet land of liberty.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  113.  
    identicon
    Headbhang, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 2:00pm

    Re: Phew, disaster averted

    Indeed. It is the height of irony that the one type of person who wouldn't need *any* weapon of any sort to create an aerial disaster gets dragged into this silliness...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This