Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional

from the hello-4th-amendment dept

Law professor Jeffrey Rosen has an excellent analysis of why the TSA's new searches are unconstitutional. He notes that, even if the majority of people aren't too bothered by the searches, that doesn't change the fact that they appear to be illegal. This is even though the courts have generally been quite deferential to the government when it comes to claims of "national security" in doing things like preventing terrorism. He notes that, while the Supreme Court has not heard such a case, there are various appeals court rulings that set the standards for such searches:
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in 2007, that "a particular airport security screening search is constitutionally reasonable provided that it 'is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives.' "

In a 2006 opinion for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, then-Judge Samuel Alito stressed that screening procedures must be both "minimally intrusive" and "effective" - in other words, they must be "well-tailored to protect personal privacy," and they must deliver on their promise of discovering serious threats. Alito upheld the practices at an airport checkpoint where passengers were first screened with walk-through magnetometers and then, if they set off an alarm, with hand-held wands. He wrote that airport searches are reasonable if they escalate "in invasiveness only after a lower level of screening disclose[s] a reason to conduct a more probing search."
Of course, as Rosen notes, the new searches do not pass that test by a long shot. He also points out that an analysis of the machines suggests that -- despite claims to the contrary by the TSA -- new research shows that last year's underwear bomber would not have been caught with these machines, which suggests that such machines are not "effective" under the above basic definition. Perhaps the Supreme Court will finally weigh in on this topic... though, by the time it reaches that level, the TSA will probably have moved on to even more ridiculous security theater practices.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Nov 29th, 2010 @ 12:13pm

    Tertiary, legalistic reasoning won't help.

    No one here has *any* evidence for the gov't version of 9/11 except what the gov't *says* about it. But we do *know* that every reason stated for invading and occupying Iraq were knowing lies. A gov't that has killed a million Iraqis is simply not to be trusted in the least.

    The whole premise of "terrorism" must be questioned. All that the gov't has done and is doing under this umbrella pretext is consistent with bringing about a police state.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Hulser (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 12:27pm

      Re: Tertiary, legalistic reasoning won't help.

      No one here has *any* evidence for the gov't version of 9/11 except what the gov't *says* about it.

      I know I shouldn't but, I can't resist...

      What exactly is the "gov't version of 9/11"? Because as far as I know, what the government has said about 9/11 is consistant with the statement of thousands of eyewitnesses, what millions saw on live TV, and the analysis of hundreds, if not thousands, of experts. So, please explain how what the US government has said about 9/11 is different from what all but a few consipiracy theorists believe.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        RD, Nov 29th, 2010 @ 12:32pm

        Re: Re: Tertiary, legalistic reasoning won't help.

        "So, please explain how what the US government has said about 9/11 is different from what all but a few consipiracy theorists believe."

        Well, there's the fact that several of the supposed hijackers were found alive in the weeks and months following 9/11. These people have been verified and proven categorically to have been alive well after they supposedly died in the plane crashes. These are the people the US govt said were the hijackers, were on those planes. This alone makes a conspiracy. Now, to what extent who knows, but there was definitely things covered up and/or falsely stated about the events and people of that day.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2010 @ 12:40pm

          Re: Re: Re: Tertiary, legalistic reasoning won't help.

          [Citation Needed]

           

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

          •  
            icon
            Dark Helmet (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 12:53pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Tertiary, legalistic reasoning won't help.

            There's no good citation, because he's actually wrong about that one. The story behind that is that the BBC released the names of supposed hijackers in the days following 9/11. It got some of the names wrong, and several of the other names are as common in Saudi Arabia as John Smith or Jenny Jones.

            The FBI corrected the reports within days. Confusion in the aftermath was to blame.

            The better, unanswered question is why at least 3 of the hijackers (w/o the common names, mind you) have names matching those that received military training on US soil....

             

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

            •  
              icon
              Hephaestus (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 1:01pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tertiary, legalistic reasoning won't help.

              "The better, unanswered question is why at least 3 of the hijackers (w/o the common names, mind you) have names matching those that received military training on US soil..."

              Conspiracy much ... ;)

               

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

            •  
              identicon
              RD, Nov 29th, 2010 @ 1:02pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tertiary, legalistic reasoning won't help.

              Well, here for a start:

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rqe3WeSyN0

              I would think several of these guys who are/were Saudi Airline Pilots wouldnt be confused with someone else just based on a similar or generic name (like "john smith" here). I dunno, but seems to me there are a lot of unanswered questions like this. I do think it was a "false flag" deal and I agree with Helmet that it was more likely a "look the other way" policy that allowed it to happen to reap legislative powers than any true "we set the whole thing up" kind of deal. Something is fishy and too many things dont line up for such a big, historic event.

               

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

            •  
              icon
              Hulser (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 1:05pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tertiary, legalistic reasoning won't help.

              The better, unanswered question is why at least 3 of the hijackers (w/o the common names, mind you) have names matching those that received military training on US soil....

              The problem is that you can't look at one or even several unanswered questions with no context. You have to look at any anomolies in the description of events in terms of the overall scenario. Specifically, could a conspiracy this big really have been kept secret? In other words, could a government that collectively couldn't poor piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel pull of planning 9/11 without anyone -- but a few easilly-disproved quacks -- finding out?

               

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

              •  
                icon
                Dark Helmet (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 1:31pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tertiary, legalistic reasoning won't help.

                "The problem is that you can't look at one or even several unanswered questions with no context."

                Bull. That's the way a conspiracy is initially undone, by finding the loose ends of the string on the ball of yarn and yanking as hard as possible to see what comes out. At one point, the problems with the JFK assassination were nothing more than unanswered questions out of context....or are you a Warren Report believer?

                "Specifically, could a conspiracy this big really have been kept secret?"

                HAS it been kept secret? I mean, we're only nine years in and there's already been a great deal made of this. And, again, I'll point towards the JFK assassination, where the revelations came a few decades later, culminating in a US govt. comittee concluding that there most likely was a conspiracy in that case....

                "but a few easilly-disproved quacks"

                If you call Jim Marrs an easilly-disproved quack....well, okay then, but that is a smart man and a very fine journalist....

                 

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

                •  
                  icon
                  Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 1:42pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tertiary, legalistic reasoning won't help.

                  I know I shouldn't but, I can't resist...

                  What "problems with the JFK assassination were nothing more than unanswered questions out of context"? Please god tell me it's not the magic bullet thing.

                   

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

                  •  
                    icon
                    Dark Helmet (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 1:49pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tertiary, legalistic reasoning won't help.

                    "What "problems with the JFK assassination were nothing more than unanswered questions out of context"? Please god tell me it's not the magic bullet thing."

                    Well, that was a problem, but more to the point for this discussion were all of the wierd relationships all the players in that event seemed to have:

                    -Oswald had intelligence training before "defecting" to Russia
                    -His wife was closely associated w/the KGB
                    -The friends of Oswalds that took in his wife after his arrest were Secret Service
                    -The guy he was working with in New Orleans as a sometimes anti-Castro, sometimes pro-Castro activist was ONI
                    -Ruby was a mobster and associated with the intelligence agency
                    -Claw Shaw was CIA and prominent with the Federal Reserve community
                    -David Ferrie was involved in intelligence operations, mostly anti-communist, including Operation: Mongoose (seriously, I couldn't make that name up....)

                    And that's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. There's just so much wrong with the Warren Report, it's kind of sad. I recommend Jim Marrs' book "Crossfire", which was one of the basis behind Oliver Stone's "JFK"....

                     

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

                    •  
                      icon
                      Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 1:55pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tertiary, legalistic reasoning won't help.

                      I didn't even know about that conspiracy. I only knew about the second gunner on the grassy knoll one (And the pill box hat one, but I digress). I've just seen the magic bullets theory debunked several times already.

                       

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

                •  
                  icon
                  Hulser (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 1:45pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tertiary, legalistic reasoning won't help.

                  Bull. That's the way a conspiracy is initially undone

                  I think that if you took any recent historic event and put your conspiracy hat on, you could come up with all kinds of "loose ends". If the Hindenberg disaster happened today, it would only be a matter of days before someone came out saying that it was an inside job.

                  The truth is that reality is messy. Even undispused facts don't always line up. I would agree that small inconsistancies can often lead to an underlying truth. But small inconsistancies, even several small inconsistancies, no not a conspiracy make. My point is that you have to weigh the relatively small amount of inconsistancies against the vast amount of consistancies.

                  there's already been a great deal made of this

                  There's been "a great deal" made of the conspiracy theory that men didn't land on the moon, but that's doesn't mean you're not a quack of you believe that.

                  If you call Jim Marrs an easilly-disproved quack

                  I don't know who that is. Has he explained how an inherently incompetent government could keep something like this a secret?

                   

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

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Nov 30th, 2010 @ 10:46am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tertiary, legalistic reasoning won't help.

                    The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

                    Perhaps the appearance of ineptitude is merely part of the farce.

                     

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

            •  
              icon
              Howard the Duck (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 1:06pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tertiary, legalistic reasoning won't help.

              Truther truth? Names please?

               

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

        •  
          icon
          Hulser (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 12:50pm

          Re: Re: Re: Tertiary, legalistic reasoning won't help.

          Well, there's the fact that several of the supposed hijackers were found alive in the weeks and months following 9/11.

          You've misunderstood my question. I was not asking for an explanation of why you thought the accepted version of events was not true. I was asking why you thought that what the US government specifically has said about 9/11 is different from the accepted version. In other words, your choice of wording -- "gov't version" -- is an apparent attempt to indicate that what the government has said about 9/11 is different than what most rational people think.

          Also...citation needed. My guess is that any "evidence" you can provide to support this idea has already been debunked several times.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Christopher Weigel (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 1:09pm

          Re: Re: Re: Tertiary, legalistic reasoning won't help.

          Y'know, I was just reading an article about people who have trouble differentiating between true and false conspiracies.

          Thanks for the case study.

           

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

      •  
        icon
        Dark Helmet (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 12:37pm

        Re: Re: Tertiary, legalistic reasoning won't help.

        "So, please explain how what the US government has said about 9/11 is different from what all but a few consipiracy theorists believe."

        There is a great deal of crap out there with regard to 9/11 conspiracy theories....but there are SOME legitimate questions as well. And there have been plenty of experts that have decried various aspects of the 9/11 Commission's findings.

        Personally, I think the "Let it happen" folks are on more solid ground than the "Made it happen" people, but I don't think we should forget that the Warren Commission was filled with govt. "experts" as well....

         

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

    •  
      icon
      interval (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 3:29pm

      Re: Tertiary, legalistic reasoning won't help.

      Wow... I'm no fan of the government but you conspiracy freaks need to go to bed. Seriously.

       

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

  •  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 12:25pm

    "No one here has *any* evidence for the gov't version of 9/11 except what the gov't *says* about it."

    You mean, apart from Popular Mechanics and their sources? Oh sorry, you meant *here*.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      JonValJon (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 2:18pm

      Re:

      That article is a joke. Pop Mechanics is an entertainment mag, dont confuse it with a serious journalistic source. That article was more of a white wash than the 9/11 commission report.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    John Doe, Nov 29th, 2010 @ 12:37pm

    Why all the fuss over TSA searches?

    People have allowed the police to set up "license" checks for many years now, so why do they suddenly care about TSA searches? The precedent has been set for a long time that the government can perform unlawful searches so this is just the next logical step. We need to quit giving an inch because they keep taking a mile.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2010 @ 12:40pm

      Re: Why all the fuss over TSA searches?

      First, I'm not sure if you're right about "license" checks, if you're referring to driver's licenses. Sobriety checkpoints have been allowed (although not by all state constitutions) in some cases.

      Anyway, the TSA screening procedures are more invasive than any sobriety checkpoint I've heard of.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        John Doe, Nov 29th, 2010 @ 12:45pm

        Re: Re: Why all the fuss over TSA searches?

        Yes, I am referring to the sobriety checkpoints. They are disallowed by the 4th amendment protection against unlawful search so state governments should not be allowed to conduct them. It does not matter how invasive a screening/search is, if there is no probably cause it is unconstitutional.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Nov 30th, 2010 @ 10:21am

          Re: Re: Re: Why all the fuss over TSA searches?

          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.

          Emphasis mine. I suppose the point is that having a law officer ask you if you've been drinking isn't unreasonable, but having a minimum-wage goon grope your wife and daughter crosses the "unreasonable" line.

           

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

  •  
    icon
    Hulser (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 12:40pm

    Citation needed

    new research shows that last year's underwear bomber would not have been caught with these machines

    Mike, can you provide a citation for this research? I think it's important because I believe the majority of the people who "aren't too bothered by the searches" are not too bothered because they believe that the underwear bomber would have been caught using the "enhanced" techniques. I've read some TD posts which explain why the TSA's measures are security theatre, but I don't recall this point being brought up before.

    (On a side note, it's sad how many times the knee jerk reaction by government to some misfortune is to pass some new legislation that wouldn't have prevented the misfortune in the first place.)

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      BBT, Nov 29th, 2010 @ 1:03pm

      Re: Citation needed

      You don't exactly need extensive research to note that the "underwear bomber" flew into the US from a foreign country so US policy could be to assrape every passenger departing from a US airport and it still wouldn't have caught him since he departed from a non-US airport.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Hulser (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 1:15pm

        Re: Re: Citation needed

        You don't exactly need extensive research to note that the "underwear bomber" flew into the US from a foreign country

        The way I interpreted the text I quoted is that the underwear bomber would not have been caught in the hypothetical scenario where he went through the Rapiscan scanner. Clearing up this kind of confusion is one of the reasons I was interested in seeing the details of this research.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          vigo, Nov 29th, 2010 @ 1:36pm

          Re: Re: Re: Citation needed

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2010 @ 1:54pm

          Re: Re: Re: Citation needed

          Just search millimeter wave underwear bomber or backscatter underwear bomber and you shouldn't have a problem finding tons of sources.

          It is difficult to get exact research on these machines because no one is certain EXACTLY what density of material it can detect; however, if it passes through clothing (including things like shirt buttons) you can assume that items which are no more dense than clothing won't be detected. PETN, which is the type of explosive used in the bombing has a density of 1.77 g/cm3, while a common polyester (used in buttons) has a density of 1.455 g/cm3. .

          So basically, if you make the PETN thin enough it will be of similar density to items which the scanner cannot detect. Also, I was able to figure this out in under 5 minutes with access to the internet so ... it's not like this information is a big secret.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            Hulser (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 5:02pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Citation needed

            Just search millimeter wave underwear bomber or backscatter underwear bomber and you shouldn't have a problem finding tons of sources.

            How easilly I can find results that seem to match what Mike referenced is besides the point. One of the strengths of Mike's writing is the inclusion of relevant links. In this case he did not include what I thought was a very important reference link. That's why I asked.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 11:20pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Citation needed

              How easilly I can find results that seem to match what Mike referenced is besides the point. One of the strengths of Mike's writing is the inclusion of relevant links. In this case he did not include what I thought was a very important reference link. That's why I asked.

              I was quoting what Rosen stated in his article. He does not provide details, other than that the research was done by a British MP.

               

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Nov 30th, 2010 @ 5:45am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Citation needed

              So ... to be clear, you can find such information yourself and you know that such information exists but you want it pointed out to you because ...

              Usually you add something to the conversation; in this instance you seem to be distracting from it.

               

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2010 @ 12:43pm

    I don't see how the TSA procedures fail to meet the 9th Circuit standard quoted (which seems pretty broad to me).

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Christopher Weigel (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 1:12pm

      Re:

      The standard is that they are "minimally invasive" and "effective". These are neither. I'm not sure how else to explain that.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Eugene (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 2:20pm

        Re: Re:

        In particular, they grossly violate this: He wrote that airport searches are reasonable if they escalate "in invasiveness only after a lower level of screening disclose[s] a reason to conduct a more probing search."

        Opting out of the x-ray scanners is most certainly not a reason to conduct a more probing search.

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    madmike, Nov 29th, 2010 @ 1:09pm

    Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional

    No one has a Constitutional right to air travel, so there's one easy way to avoid a search... DON'T FLY. Bus, Train, No search! When you buy an airline ticket you're agreeing to the terms.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Christopher Weigel (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 1:17pm

      Re: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional

      Um... no.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      DH's Love Child (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 1:19pm

      Re: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional


      No one has a Constitutional right to air travel, so there's one easy way to avoid a search... DON'T FLY. Bus, Train, No search! When you buy an airline ticket you're agreeing to the terms.


      So you're saying that traveling by air constitutes probable cause for a search?

      We do have a Constitutional right against unreasonable searches by the government. As the TSA is a government entity, it is bound by that pesky piece pf paper.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 1:39pm

      Re: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional

      A contract that violates the law is a void contract. No contract can take away the rights of citizens that are spelled out in the constitution.

      "No one has a Constitutional right to air travel"

      That is faulty logic. You do have the constitutional right to travel, it's just not spelled in those exact words.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      ac, Nov 29th, 2010 @ 1:49pm

      Re: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional

      and Rosa Parks didn't have a right to bus travel. By riding and not giving up her seat she was in violation of the implied terms of the bus company. gosh it's too bad she rode the bus instead of walking

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Eugene (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 2:22pm

      Re: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional

      No one has the constitutional right to drive a car. That doesn't give cops the right to ass rape you.

      ...unless it does. I don't know, I haven't gotten a traffic ticket in a while.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Steven (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 3:16pm

      Re: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional

      "No one has a Constitutional right to air travel"

      That is backwards logic and part of the problem with America today. Our rights do not originate with the constitution, they are innate.

      The constitution sets out the limits of what the government is allowed to do.
      Saying I don't have/have a right to xxx generally just shows your ignorance.

      On the other hand the government is given specific rights via the constitution. The government is expressly barred from this type of behavior.

      Unfortunately we're so far past the constitutional limits of what the government is supposed to be allowed to do that any arguments to reign in the governmental power grabs are difficult to make without completely dismantling the federal government as we know it.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Nov 30th, 2010 @ 10:44am

      Re: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional

      10th Amendment, baby. The Constitution enumerates the rights and powers of the government, not of We The People.

       

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

  •  
    icon
    lux (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 1:20pm

    Stop whining!

    As most folks know, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
    By that same hand, most of the TD community has shown their lack of critical analysis but effortlessly floating the idea that somehow TSA should be more lenient on the search of individual persons, but more effective in countering terrorism.

    So let me get this straight, you want minimal invasiveness, but more efficacy? I'd like to not work, but be given a check every 2 weeks. Wouldn't that be great!?

    Instead of just whining/bitching about TSA, why doesn't TD actually list the ways they would make security both less invasive and more productive in identifying terrorism.

    Also, please just don't point me to past TD articles which then serve to just point to other TD articles. Mike enjoys offering spaghetti'd links without actually showing what his solutions will be. Please prove me wrong. I am not trolling, I am genuinely interested.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Hulser (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 1:33pm

      Re: Stop whining!

      So let me get this straight, you want minimal invasiveness, but more efficacy?

      While TechDirt definately has discussed the efficacy of the new security techniques, this isn't the point of this post. What the linked article is saying is that, irrespective of the efficacy, the techniques are unconstitutional. Your exclusive focus on the efficacy appears to indicate that you're OK with throwing out the constitution as long as you personally don't mind the results.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Christopher Weigel (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 1:33pm

      Re: Stop whining!

      Israel.

      Now shape up or piss off. 'cause claiming "I'm not trolling" but spending your entire post being a hyperbolic asshole is sorta like saying "I'm not drunk" as you wrap your car around a street light at 3 a.m.

      Prove it.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        lux (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 1:51pm

        Re: Re: Stop whining!

        Israel.

        Um, what?

        Now shape up or piss off. 'cause claiming "I'm not trolling" but spending your entire post being a hyperbolic asshole is sorta like saying "I'm not drunk" as you wrap your car around a street light at 3 a.m.

        Firstly, resorting to personal insults doesn't flatter your intelligence, so you might want to take note on that.

        Secondly, what about my statement was hyperbolic? I gave a simple analogy, but why split hairs over literary devices. It's clear you can't note the difference, so I won't fault you for your obvious shortcomings.

        Lastly, you still cannot/ have not offered any solutions as to what TD (or you) would do to alter security to 1) make it less invasive and 2) more productive in identifying terrorism.

        I am still waiting on a feasible response.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Christopher Weigel (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 1:58pm

          Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

          1)

          Read up on the Israeli airport security measures. Simple, effective, non-invasive. I'm sorry for assuming you had enough intelligence to read between the lines there.

          2)

          So let me get this straight, you want minimal invasiveness, but more efficacy? I'd like to not work, but be given a check every 2 weeks. Wouldn't that be great!?

          Hyperbole

          Instead of just whining/bitching about TSA,

          Assholeism. Although your whole post is full of that.

          Again, apologies for assuming you were bright enough to not need the dots connected for you.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            lux (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 2:06pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

            I'm sorry for assuming you had enough intelligence to read between the lines there.

            By lines, I assume you actually mean one word.

             

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

          •  
            icon
            lux (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 2:08pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

            So let me get this straight, you want minimal invasiveness, but more efficacy? I'd like to not work, but be given a check every 2 weeks. Wouldn't that be great!?

            Hyperbole

            Now one more time with feeling, this is an analogy.

            For your review: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/lit_terms/

             

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

          •  
            icon
            lux (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 2:10pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

            Read up on the Israeli airport security measures. Simple, effective, non-invasive.

            Yet again, you keep claiming things without any evidence. You can't just associate words like 'simple' and 'effective' in relation to Israeli airport security without providing factual citations.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              Christopher Weigel (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 2:18pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

               

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

              •  
                icon
                lux (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 2:24pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

                The phrase "no shit" comes to mind when I read all of your posts. Go back and reread what I am asking for. I don't want a Google search, I want the information you personally are using to formulate your opinion. Maybe the third times a charm, but I doubt you can provide.

                 

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

                •  
                  icon
                  Christopher Weigel (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 2:33pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

                  The phrase "find your own fucking evidence" comes to mind when I read yours. I've provided what I believe to be a reasonable model towards improving airport security... Maybe you should put that undergrown lump of shit you call a brain to work?

                   

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

                  •  
                    icon
                    lux (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 2:43pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

                    Good, I see you've lowered yourself so much as to never be worth a shit in the scientific community.

                    Ah, I remember when Einstein first gave his lectures on the Theory of Relativity, and when asked to support his arguments, what was that famous line again..."find your own fucking evidence".

                    Terrific.

                     

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

                    •  
                      icon
                      Christopher Weigel (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 2:46pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

                      Considering we are having not a scientific but a historical discussion, for which all possible evidence can be found by yourself precisely as easily as myself, you're (again) barking up the wrong tree, finding analogues where they shouldn't exist, and being insulting because you're too lazy to do your own legwork.

                       

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

                •  
                  icon
                  Christopher Weigel (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 2:34pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

                  The phrase "find your own fucking evidence" comes to mind when I read yours. I've provided what I believe to be a reasonable model towards improving airport security... Maybe you should put that undergrown lump of shit you call a brain to work?

                   

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2010 @ 2:02pm

          Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

          How about this solution:

          We all accept that there are inherent dangers to living in a country which values freedom and privacy above "security."

          Thats it, you accept the (astronomically small) risk that you may be on a flight that gets hi-jacked (in which case you can fight back) and in exchange you get privacy and freedom. Then we don't need a TSA and we can save billions of dollars which can be used to further improve peoples lives.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            lux (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 2:11pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

            Finally, a valid, logical solution!

             

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

            •  
              icon
              Eugene (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 2:33pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

              Well, it's logically sound. But it's actually invalid because it doesn't solve the (astronomically insignificant) problem at hand. The TSA wouldn't accept it as a solution because it isn't one.

              People are excitable morons who over-inflate the dangers of anything that rests outside their control. Which is why deaths in car accidents are less important to the public than deaths in plane crashes, which are in turn less important than deaths in terrorist attacks. All of which runs exactly opposite to actual observations. The TSA is merely trying to humor the retarded children this country is made up of. Or rather, that this planet is made up of - but let's keep the scope manageable shall we?

              Did that come off too cynical? It's hard to tell sometimes.

               

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

              •  
                icon
                lux (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 3:12pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

                I was somewhat tongue in cheek with my response there :)

                 

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Nov 30th, 2010 @ 5:49am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

                  You're somewhat f**king retarded too.

                  You are too stupid to deserve freedom or privacy, so go ahead and piss yours away.

                   

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

        •  
          icon
          Rose M. Welch (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 2:04pm

          Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

          First, the groping/irradiation doesn't work. Since it doesn't work, there isn't a need to propose an alternative.

          If your coffee pot is broken, you don't wait to get a new one before you toss the old one.

          Second, you've repeatedly insulted the entire TechDirt community and Weigel personally, so stfu about insults.

          Last, five seconds with the search engine of your choice and the words 'Israel airport security' bring up dozens of short, easy-to-read articles in the amazing security in Israel. Here's my favorite, though:

          http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-b other

           

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

          •  
            icon
            lux (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 2:21pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

            Thanks for the article. However, I suspect some folks on this thread would not be appreciative of the tactics employed by the Israelis. From the article you referenced:

            "At this point, some travellers will be randomly taken aside, and their person and their luggage run through a magnometer."

            This sounds awfully like the unconstitutional and "illegal" search and seizure that was being argued against from the beginning of this post. Does it not?

             

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

            •  
              icon
              Christopher Weigel (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 2:36pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

              Do you know what a magnetometer is?

              'cause if you did, you'd realize that their "higher-security" line is in fact the baseline which existed before 9/11.

               

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

              •  
                icon
                lux (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 2:38pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

                Do you know what a magnetometer is?

                'cause if you did, you'd realize that their "higher-security" line is in fact the baseline which existed before 9/11.


                Again, what?

                 

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

              •  
                icon
                Christopher Weigel (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 2:42pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

                For clarification, a magnetometer is that fun little gate thing you walk through at american airports - the one that beeps when you carry metal through and has been in use since well before 1990.

                 

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

                •  
                  icon
                  lux (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 2:45pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

                  I guess I need to reference my "no shit" post again - And you're point being what? Both Israel and America employ magnometers...

                   

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

                  •  
                    icon
                    Christopher Weigel (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 2:49pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

                    my point being...

                    Apparently, that I'm trying to explain quantum physics to a 2-year old.

                    Go back to your blissful ignorance, I'm done trying to penetrate your shell of stupidity.

                     

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

                    •  
                      icon
                      lux (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 3:11pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

                      Apparently, that I'm trying to explain quantum physics to a 2-year old.that's hyperbole...but wait, isn't that a bad thing according to you? Screw it, why try.

                       

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

                  •  
                    icon
                    Rose M. Welch (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 3:00pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

                    Yes, and no one has a problem with that. Well, folks with disabilities want TSA agents to be better trained to recognize their issues with them, but that would be solved if we used them like the Israelis do. So, anyway, everyone is fine with them.

                     

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

            •  
              icon
              Rose M. Welch (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 2:57pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

              Lolwhut? Obviously, you have no idea that a magnetometer is a metal detector. I have no problem with metal detectors, since they can't see you naked or touch you. They're also inexpensive, and easy to train folks to use. We've been using them in airports for years with very few complaints, none of them concerning civil liberties.

               

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

              •  
                icon
                lux (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 3:02pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

                The point is....you are pulled aside without any due process. They pull you aside at random...it doesn't matter the technique used to validate whether you're a threat..it simply matters they have no reason to pull you aside and search you...also known as illegal search and seizure...

                 

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

                •  
                  icon
                  Rose M. Welch (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 4:12pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

                  So, not only do you not know what the word 'hyperbole' means, but you're stumbling over the word 'illegal'. Huh. I know you have a real problem with looking things up yourself, but does that really extend to a prohibition against a dictionary?

                  The Supreme Court ruled that random searches need to be both minimally invasive and effective. The magnetometer meets those standards. I'm going to leave the definitions of those terms as an exercise for the student, since you obviously need some practice in using the Internet.

                   

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

                  •  
                    icon
                    lux (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 5:07pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

                    My, you're an arrogant one.

                    Magnetometers can't detect bomb residue or small concentrations of vapor that are typically emitted from explosives.

                    Therefore, magnetometers don't really meet my definition of sound effectiveness. Ya know, because bombs on planes aren't good. Take a moment to not be as egocentric as possible. You are completely wrong.

                     

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

                    •  
                      icon
                      Rose M. Welch (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 5:19pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

                      I'm 'completely wrong'? Are you missing a definition again? Because you've agreed with me on some parts, so even you can't honestly state that I'm 'completely wrong'.

                      I'm wrong that neither the gropes nor the scanners can see into a cavity? I'm completely wrong that behavior profiling is effective? I'm completely wrong that Israel-style security works? (Israelis would be surprised to hear that.) I'm completely wrong that people don't mind the magnetometers? I'm completely wrong that the magnetometers can't see you naked or grope you?

                      I could go on. Except that I'm completely right, and you're an idiot.

                       

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

                      •  
                        icon
                        lux (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 5:32pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

                        "I'm wrong that neither the gropes nor the scanners can see into a cavity? I'm completely wrong that behavior profiling is effective?"

                        No, you're right - I'm sure the Israeli equivalent of a TSA agent can just look at someone and know they've got something up their ass...it's quite a skill.

                         

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

                    •  
                      icon
                      Rose M. Welch (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 5:24pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

                      My, you're an idiot.

                      The pornoscanners and molestation doesn't detect bomb residue or vapor concentrations, either.

                      Take a moment to not be as idiotic as possible.

                       

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

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2010 @ 5:32pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

                      Did you read up on Isreali security or are you getting it from TechDirt readers? Isreali security have k-9 teams patrolling both checked baggage areas as well as passenger areas. If the dog or handlers see something suspicious they follow up.

                       

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

                      •  
                        icon
                        Rose M. Welch (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 7:29pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

                        Apparently, he's either a troll or too dumb to follow a link to read about it himself.

                         

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

    •  
      icon
      Rose M. Welch (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 1:57pm

      Re: Stop whining!

      So let me get this straight, you want minimal invasiveness, but more efficacy?

      Yes, that's exactly what we want. In other words, we want Israel/Ben Gurion style security, which is minimally invasive and incredibly efficient.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      No Need, Nov 29th, 2010 @ 2:33pm

      Re: Stop whining!

      Wow, where to start.

      There are many, many people that are quite capable of work who do get a monthly check (as opposed to one every two weeks), so you can certainly do that if you so choose.

      Full body scanners are a farce at best. There is a Youtube video from a show in germany of a guy going through a full body scanner and being passed, then showing his hidden items taking them outside the studio for safety and setting off a thermite device burning a hole through (more like destroying) a frying pan. So the scanning is ineffective period. It doesn't find hidden devices, but it does make security companies rich.

      The even bigger issue is the violation of the constitutional protection against un-lawful search and seizure. If these searches were performed by the airport or airline, they would be legal and I could choose to fly one airline or airport over another. When performed by a government agency they are not constitutional. It is really just that simple.

      If you want effective security then you would use profiling. I can show you several companies that use profiling quite effectively, for sales rather than bombs, but it is indeed the same principal and it works!

      I don't think you will see many more air attacks like 9/11 in the US, once the flying public was made aware that they were not going to live they took matters into their own hands and took the plane down on their terms, remember the third plane?

      Finally air travel is by far the safest form of travel their is and it has NOTHING to do with the TSA or full body scanners.


      If you want to increase security teach people to be vigilant and pay attention and take action when they see something suspect. But that is hard, and people can't be bothered.

      If you are truly interested in security just make everyone fly naked, and handcuff them to their seats, problem solved. The point here is there are several things that can be done which are much more effective but aren't done because they upset people. So they choose to use something that is ineffective, but has a high profile and makes it look like they are doing somthing. The fact that it is not constitutional doesn't bother them at all.

      Ben Franklin said it best: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

      I choose not to give up my liberty (essential or otherwise), and I take responsibility for my own safety.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        lux (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 2:48pm

        Re: Re: Stop whining!

        If you want effective security then you would use profiling. I can show you several companies that use profiling quite effectively, for sales rather than bombs, but it is indeed the same principal and it works!

        I also believe profiling to be the best option. To put it simply, if Martians were attacking us, I doubt we'd still be groping 3 year-olds - we'd go after the damn Martians.

         

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

      •  
        icon
        Rose M. Welch (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 3:03pm

        Re: Re: Stop whining!

        What you're talking about, Lux, is racial profiling and not only is it morally repugnant, it wouldn't work. If you start profiling Martians, then the Martians would simply start using 3-year olds.

        What No Need is talking about behavioral profiling, which does work, regardless of whether the person carrying the bomb is recognizably a Martian.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          lux (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 3:16pm

          Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

          Agreed, and I appreciate the distinction, but I honestly cannot tell if you are being facetious, when you say "then the Martians would simply start using 3-year olds."

          I suspect racial profiling would also not be a bad thing, considering some Muslims have no problem with it:

          http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-29/airport-security-lets-profile-musli ms

          For the folks taking score...you see how I can make a claim ("some Muslims have no problem with it"), and actually back it up with veritable evidence. Take note. This is how debates are handled.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            Rose M. Welch (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 4:13pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

            You agree that racial profiling is morally repugnant, then you state that racial profiling wouldn't be a bad thing?

            You're an idiot.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              lux (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 4:51pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

              "You agree that racial profiling is morally repugnant, then you state that racial profiling wouldn't be a bad thing?"

              Um, what I agreed with was: "What you're talking about, Lux, is racial profiling".

              Easy chief.

               

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

            •  
              icon
              lux (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 5:11pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!

              And by the way lady, it's not morally repugnant if you're a consequentialist. From what I've heard there's a few of those in security positions.

               

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2010 @ 6:57pm

      Re: Stop whining!

      Oh man - come to Australia then... the check may be monthly instead of fortnightly but no requirement to work.

      On a more serious note: Isreal. Airport. Security. Google. Internet.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Pendrake, Nov 29th, 2010 @ 1:26pm

    @madmike

    Your right, we don't have a Constitutional right. We also don't have a Constitutional right to taking a bus, train, car, bike, or even walking down the street.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Hugh Mann (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 1:32pm

    Next level

    I'm just waitin' for the day when the bad guys start using suppositories to carry their bad guy stuff. The TSA guys will REALLY be needing their rubber gloves to search travelers then!

    HM

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    TheGeek, Nov 29th, 2010 @ 1:42pm

    9/11 happened but...

    Ok, we can all agree that 9/11 happened right? We all saw planes fly in to the two towers and the pentagon.

    However, why does 9/11 give the Government carte blanche to violate our constitutional rights? Why do we have to have TSA's do a virtual strip search or pat down our junk?

    The only possible solution I could come up with is sniffer dogs. The training costs involved would be MUCH less than the $250k machine they use now, and with a dog, its not weird for them to sniff your butt.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    ignorant_s (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 1:57pm

    Constitutionality schmonstitutionality.

    The problem is that weapons or explosives technology keeps changing, and "in light of current technology" the ability to detect the presence of weapons or explosives thereby keeps changing as well, evolving.... thus the "constitutionality" of any of this stuff is bound to reflect the changing nature of the threat. Its a changing standard.

    The conservatism or liberalism of the court to hear the case will ultimately be the deciding factor regarding the legality or illegality of the searches, not some previous appeals court holding. (Like.... Corporations now have free speech (constitutional) rights!)

    In light of the apparent power of Wikileaks to bring a superpower to shame, I would imagine we are bound for more intrusion, not less. So....I'm gearing up for more feelin' up! A natural reaction to one extreme (complete disclosure) is a ratcheting up of governmental secrecy and protection. Thus the pendulum swings....

     

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

  •  
    icon
    lux (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 2:05pm

    "Yes, that's exactly what we want. In other words, we want Israel/Ben Gurion style security, which is minimally invasive and incredibly efficient."

    Firstly, that was a rhetorical question...

    Moreover, if all you can offer is circular logic (i.e. "Israel is effective, so America should be like Israel", then I guess I am looking in the wrong place for these answers.

    However, feel free to offer any insight into the actual workings of why the referenced parties (Israel/Ben Gurion) are so effective.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      JonValJon (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 2:47pm

      Re:

      Oh man... i tried to ignore you... but I cannot.

      A. It wasnt circular logic offered, it was an exact solution to the exact question you asked. You are just mad that some one had a response, thus proving that you did not know what you were talking about in the first place.

      B. You are not looking in the wrong place for answers, you have gotten many answers to your first question, you just chose to ignore them.

      C. They are affective because they choose to look people in the eye instead of facial scanning them from a little isolated room. They are affective because they do not waste time patting down 7 year old blond girls and instead choose to focus on people who might be actual credible threats. They speak to people to get a feeling for them, not just run them through a machine like cattle. If you ask for any citations on this, you are too dumb to google.

      The point is, anyone seriously bent on causing harm could do it. Easily. Trying to go blow up an airplane these days is like trying to break into Fort Knox to steal a gold coin.. It could be accomplished much easier elsewhere. Reactive security (first ban razors, than liquids, now freaking toner cartridges???), is also incredibly ineffective.

      I think you know what measures would be more effective, and the only reason I can figure out that you are so interested in defending our backwards and ultimatly pointless airport security procedures, is because you appreciate the human contact received when you opt out of the scanners... If its all the same to you.. lets just drop the airport groping, and ill give you free hugs for life instead. Its win-win for everyone!

       

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

      •  
        icon
        lux (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 2:59pm

        Re: Re:

        I can understand your fervor given the tone of this argument, however I believe even you can appreciate the fact that you've offered the best response yet, since it actually itemizes what we should be doing here in America.

        However, I don't agree with the "go find your own evidence" attitude. This is a community - if Mike wrote an article claiming things, whatever it may be (happens all the time), then he would be lambasted for not offering evidence. Why is anyone here different? We should all be held to the same standards.

        Also, I agree that whatever we are doing now in our airports is not effective - although there hasn't been any deaths caused by terrorism on the homefront..since 9/11. I have not claimed otherwise in any of my posts, so I'm not sure where folks are getting this notion.

        What's more, I have a cousin in the Armed Forces who was just sent through TSA as an efficacy test - he got the full pat down and a scan, and was able to get through to his gate with a handgun separated into several pieces.

        So, if anything, I have direct knowledge of how TSA is not doing a proper job - yet I am merely asking for ways America can do better. And you've apparently provided them. Good day.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          MrWilson, Nov 29th, 2010 @ 3:11pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "I have a cousin...I have direct knowledge..."

          No, that's second hand knowledge. Your cousin has direct knowledge because he actually experienced it.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            lux (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 3:18pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Wow. Is this all you are bringing to the table?

            You are mistaking my use of "direct knowledge" to mean "first hand knowledge", which I did not state or imply.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              MrWilson, Nov 29th, 2010 @ 5:07pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I must be mistaken about the meaning of the word "direct" then. My apologies.

              So, second hand knowledge can be "direct knowledge," however indirect the source of the knowledge may be. Got it.

              Any other doublespeak I should know about? Is freedom also slavery and ignorance also strength? I'm easily confused about these things.

               

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

              •  
                icon
                Rose M. Welch (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 5:15pm

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

                No, you're right, Lux just has a personal issue with looking things up, including the definitions of words.

                 

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

              •  
                icon
                lux (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 5:57pm

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

                No, that's second hand knowledge. Your cousin has direct knowledge because he actually experienced it.

                What happened to TD? Why am I suddenly surrounded by snarky, smug, nitpicking people who feel the need to inflate their egos by pointing out the possible ambivalence of a phrase. Get a life.

                 

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Nov 30th, 2010 @ 12:59am

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

                  Well because you started it and keep asking for more when you could have let it go and didn't.

                  Just saying.

                   

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  MrWilson, Nov 30th, 2010 @ 12:06pm

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

                  Making personal and broad attacks on members of and the entire TD community (or any community for that matter) will do that for you.

                   

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

        •  
          icon
          JonValJon (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 3:31pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Forgive me for sounding irritated.. I was simply trying to find out if you truely were looking for a conversation.. or just trying to start a flame war. I think it may be safe to say you were in fact seeking the prior.. though based on your attempts to inject innaccurate logical fallacies into the debate.. over something as easy as typing in google and hittin search, i wonder if you ever gave a rip about your initial point in the first place...

          !huggle

           

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

    •  
      icon
      The Infamous Joe (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 2:57pm

      Re:

      You, my friend, are quite a paradox. You manage to get to TechDirt.com day after day, let can't seem to operate a simple web broswer.

      I can only assume that someone in your life told you that asking questions indicates a form of cognitive ability-- what you need to learn is that the questions can be to yourself, and you can use the tools you obviously have on hand (e.g., the internet) to answer them yourself.

      Try it, it's quite liberating. :)

       

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

    •  
      icon
      vivaelamor (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 3:00pm

      Re:

      'Moreover, if all you can offer is circular logic (i.e. "Israel is effective, so America should be like Israel", then I guess I am looking in the wrong place for these answers.'

      That statement about Israel may not be logically sound (on its own, anyway), but it is most definitely not circular logic unless you can explain how being like Israel fulfills the premise that Israel is effective. Hilariously (to me, at least), you seem to be going for the informal use of 'begging the question' and ending up with 'circular reasoning', which are two very different things.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Rose M. Welch (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 3:05pm

      Re:

      I did. I provided an article that clearly referenced the issues with American-style security theater, and the Israeli alternative. Not my fault you can't read or, apparently, think.

      Or admit when you're flat-out wrong.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      MrWilson, Nov 29th, 2010 @ 3:07pm

      Re:

      "Firstly, that was a rhetorical question..."

      That doesn't mean we can't answer it.

      "As most folks know, you can't have your cake and eat it too."

      Who are most folks? This isn't a given. There are some scenarios in which you can "have your cake and eat it too." Just because the phrase is a popular idiom doesn't mean every one agrees that it is true in all scenarios.

      "By that same hand, most of the TD community has shown their lack of critical analysis but effortlessly floating the idea that somehow TSA should be more lenient on the search of individual persons, but more effective in countering terrorism."

      You've set up a straw-man here. Leniency shouldn't be given to individuals. Effective security techniques should be applied evenly across the board. You've just assumed that the current techniques are effective by virtue of their invasiveness, but invasiveness is not necessarily a sine qua non for effectiveness in security measures.

      "Moreover, if all you can offer is circular logic (i.e. "Israel is effective, so America should be like Israel", then I guess I am looking in the wrong place for these answers."

      How is that circular reasoning? The conclusion that America should adopt similar security techniques to those of the Israeli's is not assumed in the assertion that Israeli security techniques are effective.

      "However, feel free to offer any insight into the actual workings of why the referenced parties (Israel/Ben Gurion) are so effective."

      Feel free to do your own research. People have provided you with the keywords you can search for and even links to articles you can start reading. Demanding someone hold your hand through the process of information filtering as a means of argument isn't very effective.

      If you're actually interested in understanding what people are referring to, you'll find out for yourself rather than take our word for it. If you're only here to argue because you think you're right and everyone else is wrong, there's no value in explaining anything to you if you aren't able to perceive the material as anything but fodder for insults and what you might consider to be rational retorts.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    SuperSparky, Nov 29th, 2010 @ 2:57pm

    Oh, so NOW you like the Constitution...

    I find it funny seeing people (not all, but a distinct number) that try to twist and mold the First amendment to their own liking and are just as determined to eliminate the second amendment, but somehow find it convenient to pretend to appreciate the Constitution when its protections (in the fifth amendment) finally affect themselves.

    Gee, freedom of speech. It only matters with only the speech they want to hear. Ban all others (like eliminating FoxNews, or Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck), no they can't hear opposing views, it interferes with their "tolerance" mantra.

    Gee, freedom of religion. No, they say religion must be banned. They don't believe in it, so nobody else can. Let's make up a Constitutional term like "Separation of Church and State" and teach it as if it really is in the Constitution instead of the truth that government can't establish its own religion. They twist it more by establishing a government religion of Gaia (Earth) worship and demonize everyone that questions their motives or refuses to believe it (environmentalism, climate change, etc.).

    They only want freedom of assembly for themselves. Yes, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Jon Stewart, etc. are the only legitimate public voices. All others are kooks or hate-mongers and must be stifled.

    They decry "profiling" and sue to their hearts content about the audacity of a law enforcement agency to use racial profiling to solve crimes. You know, common sense is a violation of "civil rights".

    Now, when the very system they have twisted to conform to their ideals starts to feast upon not only those they redesigned it to feast on, but now turns on its creator and becomes the very beast the original Constitution was designed to protect against, they cry foul and invoke the very document they despise.

    I call that karma (or you reap what you sow) and now perhaps these idiots will understand why liberty is so much more important than political correctness or so-called "social justice". The only way you protect liberty and bring about real justice is to favor nobody, yet use common sense, your eyes, and most importantly your brain. Stop expecting the government to solve the world's problems. Government's cause problems, they never solve them, no matter the good intentions.

    The TSA should be dissolved. Leave security up to each individual airline, and make appropriate legal penalties for not making reasonable attempts to protect their consumers. Take examples from El Al Airlines.

    A society willing to giving up liberty for safety, ends up having neither, and deserving neither. I believe Benjamin Franklin said something similar.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Rose M. Welch (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 3:26pm

      Re: Oh, so NOW you like the Constitution...

      I find it funny seeing people (not all, but a distinct number) that try to twist and mold the First amendment to their own liking and are just as determined to eliminate the second amendment, but somehow find it convenient to pretend to appreciate the Constitution when its protections (in the fifth amendment) finally affect themselves.

      No one is attempting to eliminate the Second Amendment. Contrary to popular belief, your Second Amendment rights are getting stronger, not weaker. See D.C. vs. Heller and McDonald vs. Chicago.

      Gee, freedom of speech. It only matters with only the speech they want to hear. Ban all others (like eliminating FoxNews, or Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck), no they can't hear opposing views, it interferes with their "tolerance" mantra.

      No one is attempting to eliminate what Fox calls news, or Rush Limbaugh, or Glen Beck. In fact, it's that trifecta that regularly calls for the literal elimination of people like Julian Assuage, and the public elimination of all of the other folks who simply choose to disagree with them. Sure, plenty of people have called for boycotts against their advertisers, but all sides are guilty of that, and it's not quite the same thing as a death threat, anyway.

      Gee, freedom of religion. No, they say religion must be banned. They don't believe in it, so nobody else can. Let's make up a Constitutional term like "Separation of Church and State" and teach it as if it really is in the Constitution instead of the truth that government can't establish its own religion.

      Actually, the government can't make any laws respecting a religion, and that is in the Constitution. The phrase 'separation of Church and State' is one of those pesky phrases used in the writings of the Founding Fathers that you nutters always want to quote (Except when they disagree with you, of course.) and then used repeatedly by several Supreme Court judges in various cases, making it the word of law and a precedent.

      Don't believe me? Look it up. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists' Association rings just as true today.

      They twist it more by establishing a government religion of Gaia (Earth) worship and demonize everyone that questions their motives or refuses to believe it (environmentalism, climate change, etc.).

      Please reference any laws respecting the religion of this 'Gaia'.

      They only want freedom of assembly for themselves. Yes, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Jon Stewart, etc. are the only legitimate public voices. All others are kooks or hate-mongers and must be stifled.

      I don't know about you, but I saw Glenn Beck's crowd assembling several weeks before Jon Stewart's crowd. In terms of size and signs, though, Jon Stewart's corwd won. Too bad for you. Anyway, the point is that assembly is alive and well for every kind of crazy in the union.

      They decry "profiling" and sue to their hearts content about the audacity of a law enforcement agency to use racial profiling to solve crimes. You know, common sense is a violation of "civil rights".

      As for racial profiling, even your favorite president, George W., stated that racial profiling was both ineffetive and wrong. Now, behaviour profiling, that's works and wouldn't violate anyone's rights.

      Now, when the very system they have twisted to conform to their ideals starts to feast upon not only those they redesigned it to feast on, but now turns on its creator and becomes the very beast the original Constitution was designed to protect against, they cry foul and invoke the very document they despise.

      Lulwhut? Can you translate that from Batshit to English, please, for those of us with sanity?

      I call that karma (or you reap what you sow) and now perhaps these idiots will understand why liberty is so much more important than political correctness or so-called "social justice". The only way you protect liberty and bring about real justice is to favor nobody, yet use common sense, your eyes, and most importantly your brain. Stop expecting the government to solve the world's problems. Government's cause problems, they never solve them, no matter the good intentions.

      So you agree that racial profiling is bad, then? Because using your common sense, eyes, and brains would tell you that anyone can be a terrorist and wasting time with all of the brown folks isn't going to help anyone.

      The TSA should be dissolved. Leave security up to each individual airline, and make appropriate legal penalties for not making reasonable attempts to protect their consumers. Take examples from El Al Airlines.

      Actually, each airline is allowed to use whatever security organization they like. No one if forcing them to use the TSA, although they do have to follow TSA policies.

      A society willing to giving up liberty for safety, ends up having neither, and deserving neither. I believe Benjamin Franklin said something similar.

      Yes, that's who he was quoting, you crazy, crazy, nutjob.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        JonValJon (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 4:06pm

        Re: Re: Oh, so NOW you like the Constitution...

        Thank you Rose.

        Coudlnt have said it better. For the record though... I can speak batshit crazy, and I still didnt understand a word of that one. I think the Sean Hannitty voices he cant get out of his head may have mucked up his logic train on that one..

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Rose M. Welch (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 4:18pm

          Re: Re: Re: Oh, so NOW you like the Constitution...

          I normally understand batshit pretty well (I live in Oklahoma.) but, man... Nobody is batshit like Internet people are batshit.

           

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

    •  
      icon
      vivaelamor (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 3:33pm

      Re: Oh, so NOW you like the Constitution...

      "I find it funny seeing people (not all, but a distinct number) that try to twist and mold the First amendment to their own liking and are just as determined to eliminate the second amendment"

      Whom are you referring to? You say a distinct number, which implies some degree of certainty. I guess you meant significant number, but I'd have to question how you know that.

      "Gee, freedom of speech. It only matters with only the speech they want to hear. Ban all others (like eliminating FoxNews, or Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck), no they can't hear opposing views, it interferes with their "tolerance" mantra."

      While many proponents of free speech may not agree with Fox News, or Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck, I have never heard a proponent of free speech talk about banning them. Again, whom are you referring to?

      "Gee, freedom of religion. No, they say religion must be banned. They don't believe in it, so nobody else can."

      Have I spotted a pattern? Oh wait, I spotted it last paragraph. Third time lucky: whom are you referring to?

      "They only want freedom of assembly for themselves. Yes, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Jon Stewart, etc. are the only legitimate public voices."

      Ahah! I can now deduce that the mysterious people you refer to are supporters of those public figures. Hmm, that doesn't narrow it down a lot.

      "They decry "profiling" and sue to their hearts content about the audacity of a law enforcement agency to use racial profiling to solve crimes. You know, common sense is a violation of "civil rights"."

      I still don't know who you're talking about. Please tell me, it's important.

      "Now, when the very system they have twisted to conform to their ideals starts to feast upon not only those they redesigned it to feast on, but now turns on its creator and becomes the very beast the original Constitution was designed to protect against, they cry foul and invoke the very document they despise."

      Did I nod off and wake up in a game of Dungeons and Dragons? 'The cursed scrolls of The Constitution'.

      "I call that karma (or you reap what you sow) and now perhaps these idiots will understand why liberty is so much more important than political correctness or so-called "social justice"."

      You forgot to add 'unless you're racially profiled'. Wait, are you trying to sell me a new brand of liberty?! I'm happy with the one I have, thanks.

      "Government's cause problems, they never solve them, no matter the good intentions."

      You're an anarchist? You sure don't sound like one. 'More law enforcement! No government!'.

      "The TSA should be dissolved. Leave security up to each individual airline, and make appropriate legal penalties for not making reasonable attempts to protect their consumers. Take examples from El Al Airlines."

      I think someone else's paragraph got mixed up with your post. That one actually made sense. I still don't agree with racial profiling though (and I don't believe it is the be all and end all of Israel's success at security).

      "A society willing to giving up liberty for safety, ends up having neither, and deserving neither. I believe Benjamin Franklin said something similar."

      I wonder what he would have said about racial profiling.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Rose M. Welch (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 4:05pm

        Re: Re: Oh, so NOW you like the Constitution...

        Israel doesn't use racial profiling. They use behavioral profiling. In other words, they profile based on how folks act, not what they look like.

        And how would that work anyway? The people who want to blow up Israelis look like Israelis. :)

         

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

        •  
          icon
          lux (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 5:14pm

          Re: Re: Re: Oh, so NOW you like the Constitution...

          Israel doesn't use racial profiling.

          Yah, and neither does the LAPD, on paper.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            Rose M. Welch (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 5:20pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, so NOW you like the Constitution...

            How, exactly, would Israeli racial profiling work? All of the people who want to blow up Israelis look like Israelis, you idiot.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              lux (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 5:41pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, so NOW you like the Constitution...

              All of the people who want to blow up Israelis look like Israelis, you idiot.

              You seem to say "behavioral profiling" a lot, but I'm not sure you grasp the concept.

              Behavioral profiling is not based on what people look like, in fact it's quite the opposite, it's based on how they act. If it were based on what people look like, it would be racial profiling, which is what you were against several posts back. Wow!

               

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

              •  
                icon
                The Infamous Joe (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 5:48pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, so NOW you like the Constitution...

                I think you just accidentally agreed with her. Oh shit.

                She's saying that racial profiling doesn't work when the bad men are the same race as the good men. That's why they use behavioral profiling.

                See? It doesn't sting too much to agree with sanity, does it?

                 

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

                •  
                  icon
                  lux (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 6:05pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, so NOW you like the Constitution...

                  "She's saying that racial profiling doesn't work when the bad men are the same race as the good men."

                  And the argument is once again wrong from the start. It's simply fallacious to assume that the only people interested in terrorism that might happen to be at Ben Gurion look like Israelis.

                   

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

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2010 @ 7:15pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, so NOW you like the Constitution...

                    I saw what you did there.

                     

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

                  •  
                    icon
                    Rose M. Welch (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 7:33pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, so NOW you like the Constitution...

                    It's simply fallacious to assume that the only people interested in terrorism that might happen to be at Ben Gurion look like Israelis.

                    That's what I said, idiot. Now you're just parroting me, which is funny considering that you think I'm 'completely wrong'.

                    I guess that's better than 'directly' wrong. :)

                     

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

              •  
                icon
                Rose M. Welch (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 7:31pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, so NOW you like the Constitution...

                Behavioral profiling is not based on what people look like, in fact it's quite the opposite, it's based on how they act.

                Yes, that's what I've stated repeatedly, you idiot.

                If it were based on what people look like, it would be racial profiling, which is what you were against several posts back.

                Yes, I've always been against it because it's wrong and doesn't work, as I explained above.

                Did you ever read my posts?

                Can you read at all?

                 

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

                •  
                  icon
                  lux (profile), Nov 30th, 2010 @ 7:19am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, so NOW you like the Constitution...

                  "Yes, I've always been against it because it's wrong and doesn't work, as I explained above."

                  God, I wasn't going to respond but you have your head so far up for your own smug, arrogant ass that you can't even connect the dots I plainly laid out for you. Talk about ZERO reading comprehension, you're too busy mouthbreathing over your keyboard to type the quickest, most haggard response you can articulate.

                  Racial profiling works. Feel free to read this from the mouth of a Muslim:

                  http://atangledweb.typepad.com/weblog/2006/06/why_racial_prof.html

                  But why would you do that? It would blast a whole in your delicate (read: ignorant) understanding of what morality is.

                   

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

            •  
              icon
              Eugene (profile), Nov 29th, 2010 @ 5:43pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, so NOW you like the Constitution...

              To be fair, their security can often be incredibly rude to non-American foreigners.

               

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

        •  
          icon
          vivaelamor (profile), Nov 30th, 2010 @ 4:34am

          Re: Re: Re: Oh, so NOW you like the Constitution...

          "Israel doesn't use racial profiling. They use behavioral profiling."

          Unless I missed some news stories where they changed policy and banned racial profiling then I believe they use both. El Al were recently caught trying to do so on US soil. I don't imagine every airline operates the same policies and it may be that racial profiling isn't even the official policy, but we keep hearing about it happening.

          "And how would that work anyway? The people who want to blow up Israelis look like Israelis. :)"

          Especially if they're trying to blend in. Like I said, I don't agree with racial profiling, not least because it wouldn't seem to work.

           

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

    •  
      identicon
      MrWilson, Nov 29th, 2010 @ 3:40pm

      Re: Oh, so NOW you like the Constitution...

      If the only argument against the "separation of church and state" is that it's not in the Constitution, then we can ignore most laws because they aren't in the Constitution either.

      The "separation of church and state" is from the writings of Thomas Jefferson in describing the purpose of the 1st Amendment. "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

      Further, it has been cited in court cases since, so while it is not in the Constitution itself, it has served as a part of case law. The Constitution is a basis for the laws of the United States, but it doesn't/can't spell out every scenario in which these principles would apply. That is left to later laws enacted by Congress or by interpretations of law set by precedents in court cases.

      If we don't all have the same religion, how can we reasonably expect to come to an agreement as a society on how laws should be made if we choose to use religion as a basis for laws?

      I could make up a religion in which killing people randomly is okay or even required. That doesn't mean that anyone else will get on board with my attempts to make my religion the basis for laws. That example is absurd, but some religions have been interpreted by their adherents to require what you or I might consider murder. Or is it only Christian religion that should be the basis for law? And if only Christian religion is suitable as a basis for law, which Christian sect? There are so many and they disagree on significant issues. Some Christian sects sanction gay marriage. The Westboro Baptist Church would probably execute gay people if their flavor of Christianity were the basis for law.

      So how is keeping religion out of the bases for laws a bad thing?

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2010 @ 7:33pm

        Re: Re: Oh, so NOW you like the Constitution...

        Damnit. I always wanted to hold an illegal Black Mass and here you are telling me its legal??!

        Well stuff it - I am converting to Jedi. At least they get lightsabers.

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    KING GIRL, Dec 9th, 2010 @ 10:45am

    TSA

    TSA IS HORRID BUT THEY KEEP US SAFE

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Rosemary Graham-Gardner, Mar 4th, 2012 @ 10:51am

    TSA

    I would have said: Over my dead body. Get me the supervisor and I will tell that wanking bastard what I think about this whole charade. Then I would get a good lawyer and sue the hell out of those miserable bastards and live on easy alley for the rest of my life on the Islands.
    Mahalo TSA

     

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


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